f 390 
.E48 
Copy 1 



LETTERS 



UPON THE 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS, 



ADDRESSED TO 



HON. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 



AS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED 



IN THE BOSTON ATLAS 



UNDER THE SIGNATURE OP 



LISLE. 



BOSTON: 

WHITE, LEWIS & POTTER, PRINTERS. 

1845. 



LETTERS 



UPON THE 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS, 



ADDRESSED TO 



HON. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS^ 



AS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED 



IN THE BOSTON ATLAS 



UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF 



LISLE. 



BOSTON: 

WHITE, LEWIS & POTTER, PRINTERS. 
1845. 






y 



/■ 



INTRODUCTION. 



The passage of the joint resohitions by Congress, appears^ 
to have engendered a general apathy among the opponents 
of Annexation. Wliy is it so? So far as the actual consum- 
mation of the act is concerned, we are as far from it now as 
we were prior to their passage. But the first act of the 
eventful drama has as yet been performed, — the second may 
awaken the people to sober reflection. Political impulses 
may for a time warp the judgment of the mass, but they will 
ever carry with them the elements of their own dissolution. 
With all the appliances of party, with forces flushed by 
recent triumphs and spurred onward by the spoils of victory, 
our opponents have been forced into conditional and guarded 
propositions. Before the subject is again presented to Con- 
gress, the fnry of party will have exhausted itself in the 
disgusting struggle for office, and the people will begin to 
calculate the value of the Union, and the paltry prize for' 
which it is to be jeopardized. 

Keep but the subject before the people in its practical bear- 
ing upon the present and future welfare of the country — strip' 
it of its party trappings — let it descend from the forum and 
gain a hearing at the domestic fireside, and a joint resolution 
will be echoed from every hill and valley to support the 
Constitution, and maintain the national faith and honor. 



These Letters have no other recommendation than their 
practical bearing upon the question. Still I feel that the 
homely garb in which they are presented, will give them 
additional weight with the people. Should they be the hum- 
ble instrument of presenting materials for other and abler 
hands to use, or awaken the public mind to the perils involved 
in the question, I shall be amply compensated for my labor. 

LISLE. 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 



LETTER I.' 



December 19, 1844. 



To THE Hon. John Quincy Adams : 



Sir: — The result of the Inte Presidential election has made Ihe 
admission of Texas into the Union a matter of probable occnrrence. 
The manner and conditions are, fortunately, yet undetermined. 
Their discussion in Congress, will become a matter of deep interest 
to men of all parlies — for, in the mind of every enlightened American, 
there is involved in the measure consequences of vital bearing upon 
the union and stability of these Slates. I shall offer no apology for 
the liberty I have taken, in addressing this series of leiters to you ; for 
I feel that none will be required. The commanding position you 
have assumed on this question, has, if possible, added to your fume as 
a far-seeing statesman, and to your reputation as a patriot and a man. 
No subject was ever presented to this people, of such fearful im- 
portance as this; nor one that has demanded a more careful and 
deliberate consideration; and yet, strange as it may appear, none 
was ever so little understood, or involved in such mystery and doubt. 
Indeed, I may go further, and say that there never was a subject 
offered for national investigation, under which such gross misrepre- 
sentation and deception have been practiced. Under these im- 
pressions, I cannot doubt that any information on this all-absorbing 
question will be favorably received, from whatever source it may be 
derived, or however humble may be the garb in which it is presented. 
It is my intention, in these letters, to present to the public a con- 
densed statement of the conditions under which the early emigrants 
to Texas settled ; the character of their titles to the land they occu- 
pied ; the extent of the guarantees given by the Mexican government ; 
the extent of the grants made by Mexico, and the state of Coahuila 
and Texas ; the present validity of those grants ; the extent of the 



grants already made by Texas ; to what extent the old grants of 
Mexico, and Coahuila and Texas, have been confirmed by the 
government of Texas; the actual boundary of Texas; the quantity 
and value of the lands that would be realized by our government 
by annexation ; who are the holders of the Mexican and Texian 
land scrip ; and the origin of the project. In the examination of 
these several points, will nectssarily be included the political and 
geographical position of Texas ; her ability to sustain herself as an 
independent nation ; and the danger of her engaging in foreign 
alliances, prejudicial to the safety and commercial prosperity of the 
United States. 

If the subject were one upon which the means of investigation 
were open to the public, 1 should not for a moment, presume that 
it was in my power to throw any new light upon it. But when I 
reflect that all the information, ihiis far exhibited, has been upon one 
side; that, blinded by the influence of party, a majority of our 
population have determined, at whatever cost, right or wrong, to 
possess that fertile and inviting portion of our continent, 1 feel it to 
be a duty which I owe to my country, to present the subject, as far 
as my abilities will permit, in its true light, and leave the decision 
to a people, who, however rashly they may act in the furtherance of 
party purposes, will not, in cool deliberation, sanction acts derogatory 
to the national character, and injurious to the public interest. I may 
be asked why the means' of investigation are so limited, on this 
particular subject; and why our public men have shown themselves 
so deficient of information on a question of such great weight.^ I 
answer that such is the peculiar position of both Mexico and Texas, 
in regard to the publication of Journals, and works on Law and 
Statistics, that but few have ever been produced by their presses, and 
those of the most imperfect character. 

The newspapers of those countries, particularly those of Mexico, 
are seldom received in the United States — and their contents, ex- 
cepting the local news, are rarely republished. Independent of 
the fact, that the most important documents upon this question, are 
in the Spanish language, it should be remembered, that prior to the 
agitation of this question, they were of no possible interest to our 
citizens; and previously lo the revolution of Texas, were considered 
of minor importance even by Mexico herself. Under these circum- 
stances, it cannot be a matter of surprise that the existing relations 
of Mexico and Texas, and the true position of their public lands, 
should, in fact, be a sealed book to our most intelligent and en- 
lightened statesmen. 

These letters will be presented under an anonymous form, for 
many reasons which it would not interest the public to know. The 
desire of avoiding personal responsibility, is not, however, connected 
with them. Could my name, in my own opinion, give them additional 
weight, I should unhesitatingly aflix it. Among my personal friends, 
the author will be easily recognized ; and, as 1 seek no other remu- 



neration for my labors than to be the humble instrument of a public 
good, the being pn!)Iicly known, is a consideration I would sedulously 
avoid. If these letters, as they are from time to time presented in 
this paper, should not carry in themselves intrinsic evidence of their 
truth and candor, they can assume no additional value from any 
name, however elevated. With this exposition of my feelings and 
views, 1 shall proceed at once to the subject; asking of you, sir, and 
the public, that the imperfect manner in which 1 may present it, may 
be overlooked, in the importance of the matter. 



LETTER II. 

December 21. 

Sir : — In the diplomatic correspondence of Mr. Calhoun with our 
representatives in Mexico, and the notes of Mr. Shannon to the 
Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, that governrnent is accused 
of having invited emigration to the country, for the purpose of defence 
against the frontier Indians — and of subsequently driving the colonists 
into a revolution by oppression. The question as to the right, or 
justification, of Texas, in her revolt against the central government 
of Mexico, has been, for all national purposes, settled by her success. 
The atrocious system of u'arfare avowed by Mexico, in her attempted 
subjugation of Texas, has proved to the world, that as a nation, she 
is totally unfit to govern a colony of the Anglo-Saxon race. With 
such a people, we, as an enlightened nation, can have no sympathy. 
Still, degraded and despicable as she is, we are bound, in our inter- 
course with her, to regard her as an independent nation — with rights 
as such, which we, as a stronger power, cannot honorably invade. 
The fact of her inviting emigration, is one of considerable importance 
to a proper understanding of her claims on Texas. If it should 
appear that she never contemplated, or authorized, such a class of 
colonists as eventually settled in Texas — and that, upon the discovery 
of the evil, she used all the means at her command to stop such 
emigration — and that the use of such means was the origin of the 
oppressive acts which drove Texas into revolt, although it would not 
afiect the position of Texas, in the present question, as an independent 
jiation, still it would go far to justify Mexico in the strong language 
she has used, in her diplomatic intercourse with the United States. 

To a correct understanding of this subject, it is necessary to refer 
to the colonization Uws of Mexico. The first law was promulgated 
by Augustin the 1st, (the famous and unfortunate Iturbide.) After 
proclaiming the necessity of a general colonization law for the 
empire, the first article declares — " The government of the Mexican 
nation will protect the liberty, property, and civil rights of all 



foreigners who profess the Roman Catholic apostolic religion, the 
established religion of the empire." By the 16th article, it is made 
the duty of the government to provide tfie colonists with religious 
instruction. By the national colonization law of 1824, all emigrants 
were sworn to support the then existing constitution and laws, which 
declared the Catholic religion the only religion of the State, and all 
others as prohibited. The same law, article 4th, prohibited any 
colonization of lands within twenty leagues of the boundary of any 
foreign nation, or within ten leagues of the coasts. By the coloni- 
zation laws of Coahuila and Texas, (decreed in 1825,) under which 
a vast majority of the land titles of Texas were issued, the same 
provisions are made. Article 3d reads as follows: 

"The Ayuntamiento, in such case, sliiill administer to liim (the emigrant) 
the oath which lie must take to obi^y tlie Federal and State Constitutions, and 
observe tlie religion whicii the fortni-r jirescribes — and consider him from that 
tune, and not before, as domiciliated." 

From the continual infringement of the above provisions, by the 
introduction of Protestant families, as early as 1827, th<; State of 
Coahuila and Texas issued instructions to the Commisioners of Land, 
in the following strong language : 

" It shall be the duty of the Commissioner scrupulously fo examine the 
certificates, or recommendali(ms, which f ireign (.'migranls must iirodnce from 
the Jocvii authoritiiis of the place vviien; they removed from, accrediting their 
christltiniti/, morality, and steady habits — without which requisite th( y shall 
not be admitted into the cotany." 

By the above provisions it will be distinctly seen, that no invitation 
was ever given by Mexico, except to Catholic emigrants — and that 
the introduction of Protestant families was expressly prohibited. In 
the enactment of the general law of Conhuila and Texas, Texas had 
a voice, by her elected delegates. No decided opposition was ever 
made by her representatives, to such provisions — froiTi the fact, 
probably, that the imbecility of Mexico would not permit their en- 
forcement. As no act could be legally performed unless the indi- 
vidual was an acknowledged Catholic, the most shameful profanation 
of religious ordinances was permitted. Marriage ceremonies were 
performed, a dozen at a time ; crowds baptized at once, at a trifle 
per head ; and the sacrament partaken, as a matter of frolic. Instead 
of none but Catholics being admitted into the Colony, no Catholics 
could gain admission into the Protestant Colonies ; or, if admitted, 
their position soon became so uncomfortable as to compel them to 
emigrate to other sections of the country. 

This state of things was early seen by the General Government 
of Mexico; and active measures were taken to suppress the evil. 
The Law of Congress, prohibiting the settlement of lands within 
twenty leagues of the United States, and ten leagues of the coast, 
without permission of the General Government, had been evaded, 
and considered as a dead letter by the Colonists. It was in the 
attempts made by the Mexican Government to enforce the laws. 



which the Colonists had sworn to support, that the first opposition to 
Mexico exhibited itself. There is a Law of Coahuila and Texas, 
passed March, 1825, authorizing the sale of public lands, at auction, 
in which the following clause occurs : 

Art. 10th. No person shall be molested for political and religious opinions, 
provided he shall not disturb the public order. 

This is, I believe, the only instance, in the legislation of any of 
the States of Mexico, in which a law has been passed tolerating 
Protestants. Unfortunately for the Texians, this law was declared 
unconstitutional, and vetoed by the National Congress. Up to the 
period (1835) of the subversion of the Constitution of 1824, by Santa 
Anna, the efforts of the Mexican Government were unceasingly di- 
rected to the restoration of law and order, in the department of Texas. 
The restless Protestant spirit of the Colonists, however, could not be 
bent to Catholic rule. Every effort of the General Government, to 
maintain the authority of the legitimate laws of the colony, served 
but to exasperate, more and more, the population. Up to this period, 
the conduct of the Texians can only be defended, on the principle of 
the right of self defence against the proscription of Catholic intol- 
erance. But for the overthrow of the Constitution of 1824, and the 
natural right she possessed, as an independent State, to resist the 
usurpation of Santa Anna, the world could not have justified her in 
her revolutionary struggle for independence. 

I have gone thus at some length into the question — Did Mexico 
invite the colonists into Texas ? — to show, that whatever may have 
been her political sins, she cannot justly be charged with the treachery 
urged upon her by our Executive. Her national colonization laws 
were general, and had no exclusive reference to Te.xas. Protestants 
were expressly excluded from a participation in them ; — and, to this 
day, in the other States of the confederacy, they are excluded. That 
the influx of Protestants into a part of her territory has lost to her 
the fairest part of the Republic is her misfortune, not her crime. 



LETTER III. 

December 26. 

In my last letter, I think I demonstrated from the colonization laws 
of Mexico, that she never invited Protestant emigrants to her terri- 
tory — and that no Protestant could acquire a legal title to land under 
the laws she had enacted. When it is recollected how large a major- 
ity of the present holders of her land titles are not only not Catholics, 
but have never even gone through the forms required by the law, a 
2 



10 

question will naturally arise, could the titles derived from Mexico, 
and the State of Coahuila and Texas, be maintained in the Courts of 
the United States, should Texas be annexed ? It is to be presumed 
that our Courts would rule, that, where the original conditions of the 
grants had not been fulfilled, the grants would be void. It is a well- 
known fact, that, excepting Austin's old Colony, on the Brasses, and 
some of the military grants, not one colonist in ten has complied with 
the conditions of the law; and of the immense amount of floating 
titles now in the hands of speculators, not one in one hundred could 
be sustained under the Mexican laws. If the rules laid down in the 
decisions upon the validity of Spanish titles, in Florida, and French 
aind Spanish titles in Louisiana, should be applied to the Mexican 
titles, now in the hands of Protestants and non-residents, many, who 
are now dreaming of realizing thousands from annexation, will find 
themselves sadly disappointed. In the discussion of this subject, 
however, I shall take the position that all the grants made are legal, 
irrespective of religious tests; and, where those grants have been 
contested by the Government of Texas, show, as clearly as possible, 
the grounds upon which they have been contested. 

I shall now proceed to explain, in a concise manner, the nature and 
character of the Land Titles of Mexico and Texas. Previously to the 
revolution of Mexico, Moses Austin obtained of the Spanish authori- 
ties the privilege of establishing a colony of Catholics in Texas. He 
was, however, prevented from carrying his plans into execution, by 
death. Subsequently to his death, his son, S. F. Austin, applied to 
the then new Empire of Mexico for a confirmation of the privilege 
formerly granted to his father. It was confirmed by the existing 
authorities — and a settlement of three hundred families located on 
the Brassos River. The proceedings of Gen. Austin were confirmed 
by the General Government, and. the title of the settlers made abso- 
lute fee simple. These are the only titles of the kind in Texas, 
derived from Mexico. A National Law was passed, in August, 1824 
— from which, to a clear understanding of the subject, it is necessary 
to make the following translated extracts : 

Art. 1. Tlie JMexican nation ofTers to foreigners, who come to establish 
themselves within its territory, security for their persons and property, pro- 
vided they subject themselves to the hivvs of the country. 

Art. 3. For this purpose tlie Legislatures of all the States will, as soon as 
possibh>, form colonization laws, or regulations for their respective States, 
conforming themselves, in all things, to the constitutional act, general consti- 
tution, and the regulations established in this law. 

Art. 12. It shall not be permitted to unite in the same hands with the 
right of propcirty, more than one league square of land, suitable for irrigation, 
four srpiare leagues in superfices, of arable land, without the facilities of irriga- 
tion, and six scjuare leagues in superfices of grazing land. 

Art. 1.5. l\o ]ierson, who, by virtue of this law, acquires a title to lands, 
shall liold them, if he is domiciliated out of the limits of the Republic. 

Under the powers granted by the above, the State of Coahuila and 
Texas proceeded to enact a Colonization Law, confining tiie privilege 



11 

to Catholics, as shown in Letter No. 2, reRtrictinf]f the approach to the 
sea-coast, and to the boundary of the United States, and confining 
themselves to the restrictions of the national law. Under its provis- 
ions. Undertakers, or Einprcssarios, were allowed certain limits, which 
are marked out on the old maps of Texas as grants — within which 
they were at liberty to introduce the number of families for which 
they might have contracted ; the term of six years being allowed for 
the completion of the contract. The time, however, was, in many 
cases, extended by the State. For the introduction of one hundred 
families, they were allowed five srtios and five labors of land; and 
the same for each hundred up to eight hundred — above which num- 
ber, no Empressario was allowed a premium. Each family, or single 
man, upon locating in the country, and complying with the law, was 
entitled to a given quantity of land, varying from one labor, (177 
acres) to a sitio or league, 4428 acres. As an acknowledgment to 
the State, they were to pay "for each sitio, thirty dollars; for each 
labor, two dollars fifty cents, without the facility of irrigation ; and 
three and a half dollars for each one that can be irrigated." The full 
payments were not to be made until six years after settlement, and in 
instalments of four, five and six years. The titles of all settlers to be 
considered renounced, and the land taken possession of by the Gov- 
ernment, if not cultivated, or settled upon within six years from the 
grant. The emigrant had liberty to leave the country, and sell his 
land, if he thought proper so to do — the purchaser, however, was 
required to fulfil the conditions under which the original grantee 
received it. Empressario contracts were made for even hundreds of 
families, no premium being allowed for any less number than one 
hundred, nor for an excess, unless they amounted to another hundred. 
The title of a settler was not, however, vitiated by the non-fulfilmenl 
of the Empressario's contract. Some of the contracts expired, by 
limitation, before the declaration of independence by Texas. Others 
were in force ; but the position of the country, and the legislation of 
the existing government, stopped emigration under them. 

Under each of the grants, or Empressario contracts, more or less 
families were settled. Forms were established by the government, 
through which the emigrant must pass, before receiving a full title. 
These forms embraced so long a period of time, that but few titles 
were confirmed by the State, prior to the declaration of independence. 
One of the first acts of the government of Texas was, to close the 
land offices, and to require all sums due the government of Coahuila 
and Texas, as taxes or land dues, to be paid to the government of 
Texas — exonerating her citizens from all liability to the Mexican 
authorities. The only evidence of title received by the emigrant was 
the Empressario's certificates, certified by the local authorities — and 
an order for a survey, or a certified copy of the survey, when made. 
Under these contracts, an immense number of spurious titles were 
issued — of which, and of other special grants made by the States of 
Mexico, I will speak in my next letter. 



13 

LETTER IV. 



December 28. 



Sir: — I closed my last letter with the promise to designate other 
grants that had been made by Mexico, aud the State of Coahuila and 
Texas, and to point out the immense number of fraudulent land 
claims that had been manufactured in the Texas speculation. The 
extraordinary haste with which this question is being pressed before 
Congress, and the evident determination of the leaders of the Loco 
Foco party to force the measure, whatever may be the ultimate 
consequences, admonishes me of the necessity of passing lightly over 
the minor points, and proceeding, at once, to the weighty matters 
involved in the question. It appears to me that there is a premeditated 
determination, both with the Government and its party leaders, to 
stifle, if possible, all investigation — obtain ihe annexation, at whatever 
cost — and leave the people to reflect, at their leisure, on the con- 
sequences of rash and hasty legislation. It is my intention to dispel, 
if possible, the more than Egyptian darkness that now hangs over the 
subject — and enable the people at large, as well as their represen- 
tatives, to raise a warning voice. 

In 182S, a grant was decreed by the states of Texas and Coahuila, 
Tamaulipas and Chihuahua, to Bradbourn and Staples, for the ex- 
clusive navigation, by steam, of the Rio del Norte, and the privilege 
of locating upon all the vacant lands on either side of the River. 
This grant was confirmed by the Federal Government for the term 
of fifteen years. A sail vessel, of a light draft, was fitted with a 
steam engine, in New York, in 1830, and sent out under the com- 
mand of Capt. Henry Austin. The river was ascended, with great 
difficulty, at a high stage of water, about 700 miles. The navigation 
was found to be impracticable for a boat of any size, and the project 
was abandoned. The projectors, however, secured their claim by 
the experiment — and now hold it as good against the Mexican 
Government. Of this river, as the Treaty boundary of Texas, 1 shall 
speak more fully hereafter. 

From time to time, since 1824, the Federal Government, and that of 
Coahuila and Texas, have made many military grants (so called) for 
services rendered the State. They vary from three to eleven leagues 
each. The papers certifying these grants were, in almost every 
case, copies of the originals deposited among the archives of the 
district in which the land was located, or where it was intended to be 
located. This opened a channel for the most extensive frauds. 

Duplicate copies of these titles to grants could be obtained, to any 
extent, by paying for the labor of writing them ofF. Individuals had 
but to purchase an original title, and they could obtain as many 
copies to speculate upon as they might wish. A profitable trade has 
been, for years, carried on, in the southern and western States, in 



13 

thi8 new species of merchandise ; and there are probably thousands, 
in the south and west, who, during the last political campaign, were 
hugging these fancied slices of the El Dorado, and hurraing for Polk 
and Texas. The facility with which an emigrant's papers could be 
obtained, under the Empressario contracts, and the ready sale their 
spurious titles met with, in the United States, drew a host of specu- 
lators into the business. Persons were hired at Natchez, and other 
places on the Mississippi, and also at New Orleans, to proceed to 
Texas, take the oath of intention to locate, obtain a title, and then 
return. These titles, thus fraudulently obtained, could not be dis- 
tinguished from the genuine, — and their character can only be 
eventually known, when the unfortunate purchaser attempts to take 
possession of his land. I have previously shown that a title could 
only be valid, when the emigrant had located upon, and improved 
the soil. An immense number of these false head rights have been 
sold in this country, and are now distributed through almost every 
State in the Union. In addition to these, there are supposed to be 
fifty millions of acres in worthless titles, issued by the El Dorado 
company, Galveston bay and Texas land company, the Arkansas 
and Texas land association, and the Colorado and Red River com- 
pany. The certificates of land stock, of some of these companies, 
have been sold at auction in New York, and elsewhere, to an immense 
amount. For some years, agents were employed to traverse the 
Western States, and sell their worthless paper at a cent, and even 
less, for the acre. Millions of it are now in the hands of our western 
mechanics and farmers who firmly believe that, if Texas is annexed, 
they can sell the trash that has been palmed off upon them, at two or 
three dollars theficre. I have little doubt that, in the State of New 
York, at least one-tenth of the voters are directly or indirectly in- 
terested in this scrip — and that it exists in large quantities in all the 
middle and eastern States. But a word of explanation is here nec- 
essary, to show the reader why the scrip is, as I have represented it. 
If the reader will turn to my third letter, he will there find a descrip- 
tion of the Empressario grants or contracts. These land companies 
having purchased of the Empressarios the right of locating families 
upon their grants, and of receiving the commission of five per cent, 
allowed by the government for actual settlers, have assumed the title 
to the land mfee simple, and issued scrip purporting to give an actual 
title to land, for which they have never paid one cent, or fulfilled a 
single condition named in the original grant. These titles may be 
known, by being in decimal numbers of acres, such as, 100, 500, 
1000, &c. No titles of such even numbers of acres have ever been 
issued by the States of Mexico or by Texas. 

When it is borne in mind that this immense number of spurious 
titles, spread over the country, are over and above the bona fide 
titles actually acknowledged by the Texian Government, some faint 
estimate may be formed of the immense influence their possession 



14 

has had upon the late Presidential election. By official returns, made 
under the direction of the Congress of Texas, in 1838, it appears 
that the then existing land claims, of which the titles were good, 
amounted to about forty-five millions of acres. Since that period 
other titles have been brought forward, and extensive grants have 
been made by the Government. The exact amount, in acres, of the 
valid grants that have been made, since 1821, cannot clearly be 
ascertained from the records of the land offices. The situation of 
the country, and the careless manner in which the books have been 
kept, forbid anything like an accurate estimate. It is, however, 
somewhere between sixty and seventy millions of acres. Of this 
immense amount of land claims, good and bad, seven-eighths are 
held by citizens of the United States. Estimating these seven-eighths 
to be equal to one hundred millions of acres, let us, for a moment, 
pause to contemplate the strange spectacle it presents. The charac- 
ters of the several titles are not known by the holders — nor can they 
be known, in most cases, without a long and expensive investigation. 
The holders, of course, believe them good. The price of much 
inferior land, in the West, is from one to two dollars per acre. We 
will, for illustration, set the value at one dollar. Here we have a 
direct bribe, operating upon the ballot box, of one hundred millions 
of dollars. Upon the election of a particular candidate for the 
presidency, depends the annexation of Texas. Upon that annexation 
depends the value or worthlessness of the property held. Can it, for 
a moment, be doubted, taking human nature as we every where find 
it, that it would positively and directly control the votes of the several 
holders. 

Had human ingenuity been taxed to its utmost sttetch, to devise a 
scheme that should insure the election of a particular candidate to the 
presidency, by indirect bribery and corruption, none could have been 
devised, more secret in its workings, or more certain in its results. 
None, where the power that controlled the will of the voter could so 
effectually operate, unseen and unsuspected. To what extent it has 
influenced the popular vote, can never be known. Still, I think that 
no true friend of his country — no advocate of the purity of the ballot 
box — can follow me through these hasty and imperfect letters, with- 
out acknowledtrina; that Jamks K. Polk owes his election to the 
influence of Texas Scrip. 

But 1 have said enough on this point. It \vas and is my intention, 
in these letters, to confine myself to documents and facts, and leave 
the more difficult task of illustrating them, to abler and more in- 
fluential hands — reserving to myself the privilege of explaining, 
hereafter, more fully, the points hastily touched upon, should the 
discussion in Congress be continued longer than is now probable. 

Beyond the grants I have already spoken of, there are others of 
immense amount, which have been repudiated by Texas — which, 
should the Treaty laid before the Senate be ratified, would, in my 



15 

opinion, be binding upon tbc United States. Of those, and the 
question of Boundary, 1 will s|)euk in my next, and show, as I think 
1 can, that, in case of annexation, the United States w^ould not realise 
a league of land, that would be available for sales for at least a 
century to come. 



LETTER V. 

January 2, 1845. 

Sir : — By a decree of the State of Coahuila and Texas, dated April 
19lh, 1834, the Governor is authorized to dispose of four hundred 
sitios of the public land, to meet the expenses attendant upon calling 
out the militia to defend the State against the Indians. The decree 
recites the imminent peril in which the lives and property of the citi- 
zens were placed, by the incursions of the savages. By an act of 
March 26th, 1834, it is decreed, that the vacant lands of the State 
shall be sold at auction, under certain restrictions, and allowing Prot- 
estants to be purchasers. By a decree of 23d of April, it is provided 
that "after the lands are once exposed at public sale, with all the 
formalities provided in the law of March last, should there be no offer 
as high as the minimum price therein specified, they shall be open 
for any person to purchase them at said price, without the necessity 
of again opening the auction.'" A decree of 14th of March, 1835, 
has the following provisions : Art. 1. "The Executive, for attending 
to the present public exigences of the State, may dispose of the vacant 
lands thereof, to the amount of four hundred sitios." Art. 2. "He 
shall regulate the colonization of said lands on the bnsis and condi- 
tions he shall judge proper, without subjection to the provisions of the 
law of the 26th of March, of the last year." All these decrees, it 
will be borne in mind, were passed by the Congress of the State, 
while the Department of Texas was fully represented in that body ,' 
she standing, in regard to the whole State, in almost precisely the 
same situation that Maine stood to Massachusetts, prior to her admis- 
sion into the Union. No protest having been made by the represen- 
tatives of Texas against the decrees, nor against any executive action 
under them, until after her declaration of Independence. To meet 
the expenses attendant upon the defence of the State against the 
Indians, and pay the troops called out in the numerous Pronuncia- 
mcmtos of that period, the Executive, under the above provisions, 
made a sale to John T. Mason and others, of eleven hundred leagues 
of land, fur which the contracted price was paid to the government, 
it being, in fact, the only land for which the government have ever 
received the full stipulated value. These contracts, or sales, are re- 
pudiated by the goverment of Texas, in the 10th article of the general 



16 

provisions of the Constitution, on the grounds that the purchasers were 
not citizens of Mexico, and that the grants were repugnant to the 
general colonization law of 1824, as decreed by the Federal Govern- 
ment. I have, heretofore, shown that the same objections could be 
made, and with equal force, against all the grants made, through 
Empressarios, by the State of Coahuila and Texas. I will not ques- 
tion the right of Texas, as an independent nation, to invalidate such 
grants ; for we have instances of repudiation, of somewhat similar 
character, among our own Slates. But how far they would be bind- 
ing upon the United States, in case of annexation, is a question of 
great moment. In the returns made by the government of Texas, of 
the amount of land granted and donated by the Mexican and Texian 
authorities, these immense sales are not included ; nor are the eleven 
league grants, located within ten leagues of the coast, and twenty 
leagues of the United States — they, also, being contrary to the pro- 
visions of the law of 1824. Should Texas lose her identity as an 
independent nation, by being annexed to us, her constitution and 
acts of repudiation must, as a matter of course, become a dead letter. 
The right or justice of all land claims must be considered, under the 
existing laws of the States of Mexico. 

It is not for a moment to be presumed that either Mexico or Texas 
would enter into a negotiation with us, unless under a guarantee on 
our part that all legal titles to land within the territory should be con- 
firmed. In fact, such is one of the leading provisions of the Treaty 
negotiated by Mr. Tyler, and laid before the Senate. These immense 
grants, made as they were under the sanction of Texas herself, acting 
through her representatives in the Congress of Coahuila and Texas, 
although repudiated by Texas, as an independent nation, would and 
must be, in justice, binding upon these United States, unless other- 
wise expressly provided for. The people of Texas, and the scrip- 
holders in this country, are too deeply interested in the confirmation 
of their titles, to permit any negotiations that shall invalidate them. 
And Mexico, provided she is ever brought to confirm the cession, or 
to agree to a common boundary, will take care that she burthens the 
concession with every possible claim that can be brought. It will be 
borne in mind, that in the repudiation of the titles of this immense 
quantity of land, Texas was acting in self-defence. Her position, at 
the period, demanded that every means in her power should be used, 
to attach the residents to the soil, and to identify their interests with 
hers. The then existing grants, under the Mexican authorities, cov- 
ered nearly every acre of her available land. Without money, or a 
provision of any of the materials of war, she could only look to her 
public lands for the means of defence. The profuse and reckless 
decrees of the State of Coahuila and Texas, passed in opposition to 
the National Colonization Law, (although her own representatives 
performed a prominent part in their passage,) offered the most avail- 
able means of clearing off the incumbrances upon her public domain. 
The individuals, too, who constituted her national assemblies, were 



17 

large holders of land. The vitiating of those titles gave a great in- 
crease in value to theirs. The justice of their repudiation, under the 
circumstances, had but little weight. They had entered into a contest, 
which could only be carried on by exciting the cupidity of adventurers, 
with the ofTer of a distribution of the soil among tbose who should 
successfully defend it. Should she remain an independent nation, 
the policy of the measure could not be questioned, whatever might be 
said of her public faith. But should her nationality become e.\tinct 
by annexation, we should be compelled, in good faith, to confirm 
these titles, even if they were not forced upon us, as concessions of 
Te.xas, while forming an integral pan of Coalmila and Texas — or as 
claims for which Mexico would be bound to provide, in a treaty of 
assent and boundary. 

1 stated, in my last letter, that the amount of existing land titles, 
acknowledged by Texas, was between sixty and seventy millions of 
acres. I will, in my calculation, suppose it to be sixty-five millions. 
Let it be borne in mind, however, that the acknowledged existence 
of such an amount of good titles is not only no proof that it embraces 
all, but is in fact a proof that claims exist to a much greater extent. 
Titles, to an immense amount, have already been thrown out by the 
land ofhces ; many of which titles are now in litigation in her Courts 
— and many more would be, but for the cost and difficulty of their 
prosecution. It is well known that titles for many millions of acres, 
presumed by judges to be good, are now floating in the United States, 
which have never been presented for examination or confirmation. 
These may swell the amount to an extent, not even suspected by the 
Texian government. I know, from the manner in which business has 
been conducted in the several land olfices of Texas — as a Colony, 
State, and Independent Nation — that no estimate near to the truth, 
can be formed, of the quantity of land sold and donated. Prior to 
1836, there was no regular system, either of record or survey. 

However desirous the Government may have been to establish 
order and system in her land department, it could not have been done 
in half a century, with the means she has had at her command. We 
have, then, good reason for supposing that the actual claims will 
much exceed sixty-five millions. To that amount are to be added the 
claims I have designated as repudiated by Texas. I have not the 
documents before me to show the number of grants that have been 
located within ten leagues of the coast, and twenty of the boundary 
of the United States — but, if the reader will run his eye over the map, 
and observe the extent of territory included in the limits, and bear in 
mind that, from its location, it is the most valuable portion of her ter- 
ritory, he can form an idea of the extent to which it has been shingled 
over with surveys and titles. I will call these claims fifteen millions, 
which is undoubtedly a small estimate — making the entire land claims 
of Texas eighty millions of acres, without reference to claims not yet 
presented. 

Having thus examined the character of the land titles, and made 
3 



18 

what 1 consider a fair estimate of the claims upon the public domain 
of Texas, I will next proceed to show what are the limits of Texas 
proper, from the best authorities — what claims she has to the boun- 
dary established by her own act of Congress — the almost utter im- 
possibility of Mexico's ever acceding to the Rio del Norte as the 
boundary — and that the land-claims designated above, will more than 
cover every acre of available land. 



LETTER VI. 

January 14. 

Sir : — The boundaries of the several States of Mexico have never 
been accurately settled. Acts have been, from time to time, passed 
by the different States and Departments, and Commissioners have 
been, in several cases, appointed to mark out boundary lines ; but the 
nature of the country, fear of robbers, and the constant liability of 
molestation from wandering Indian tribes, have effectually prevented 
any definite action in the matter. I believe that no map exists, upon 
which the limits of all the States and Departments are delineated — 
and, even in those deemed the best authority, which have traced the 
outlines of the States bordering upon the Gulf of Mexico, no two 
agree. The only authorities, therefore, that can be saAOy relied 
upon, to settle the question as to the extent of Texas proper, are the 
acts of th.^ Legislature of Coahuila and Texas, and the limits over 
which, by the acknowledgment of the other States, she held undis- 
puted sovereignty. The boundary line, dividing Texas from New 
Mexico or Santa Fe, on the North, has, in almost every map, been 
run along the banks of the Red River — yet in the acts of the two 
States no such limits are named. In fact, from the country being 
unexplored, and in the exclusive possession of the Indians, each State 
has considered its limits, North and South, as indefinite. So, also, 
on the West, in the boundary between Texas, Santa Fe and Chihua- 
hua, no lines have been drawn; and the territorial limits are only 
known by conceded right of jurisdiction. What, then, are the limits 
of Texas, as understood by Coahuila, and by the adjacent States .' 
In the official report of Gen. Almonte, (now the Minister of Mexico 
to the United States,) who was appointed by the federal government, 
in 1834, as Commissioner to settle the difficulties then existing be- 
tween Coahuila and Texas and the government, he states that Te.xas 
proper is situated between 28 and 35 degrees north latitude, and 17 
to 25 degrees longitude west of Washington — making the southern 
boundary north of the mouth of the Nueces river, and the northern 
north of the Red river — intending, most probably, the river as the 



19 

line ; and in the west, taking in part of what has been usually consid- 
ered the territory of Santa Fe. These limits will give near 170,000 
square miles, or 109,000,000 of acres. In the Legislative acts of 
Coahuilaand Texas, tl>c boiiriflary of Texas, as a Department, com- 
mences at the mouth of the river Aransaso, the first stream north of 
the Nueces; follows the river to its source; thence, in a line, to the 
junction of the Medina and San Antonio, near Bexar; and, following 
the Medina to its soiirces, thence, in a westerly line, to Chihuahua, 

The reader will see, by a reference to the map, Ihc large extent of 
country embraced between this boundary and the Nueces. Mrs, 
Holly, in her work on Texas, written and prepared for the press prior 
to the revolution — and which, from the fact of its having been dic- 
tated and arranged by Stephen F Austin, the pioneer of the settle- 
ment, may be with safety cons=idered as the best evidence that can be 
offered, for all the claims of Texas — gives the boundary as follows : — 

" It is situated between 27 and 33 deg. 3D min. north latitude, and 
93 deg. 3!) min. and 99 deg. 3D min. west longitude. Its boundaries 
are the Red river, separating it from Arkansas, on the North, the 
Gulf of Maxico, on the South, the Sabine river and Louisiana on the 
East, and the river Nueces, separating it from Tamaulipas and Coa- 
huila, on the West — and comprises nearly 200,000 square miles of 
territory." Its extreme length, she says, is 450 miles, and breadth 
400. This, allowing it to be a rectangle, would be but 180,000 
square miles, or 115.000,000 of acres. 

This evidence, from the most just and distinguished man that ever 
trod the soil of Texas — one who, if he erred at all, would be most 
likely to do so in enlarging the territorial extent of a country to which 
he had, for years, devoted every energy, both of mind and body — 
ought to be conclusive, in the mind of every unpreju<iiced citizen, as 
to the extent of Texas proper. These calculations are, however, in 
my opinion, above the actual quantity of land within the old limits of 
Texas. I will, however, assume them as the basis of my remarks. 
It should be borne in mind that these calculations cover the whole 
surface — water, mountains, &c. Before proceeding to the consider- 
ation of the enlarged boundary of Texas, as assumed by her act of 
Congress — and which the friends of annexation claim as the territory 
to be actually acquired by the measure — I shall proceed to show what 
would be the quantity and value of the public land acquired by these 
United States, should annexation take place. I shall, no doubt, be 
asked why I confine Texas to the limits above named. I answer 
that, under no circumstances, can these limits be materially changed, 
unless by a war of conquest against Mexico. The acquisition of 
Texas proper may be looked upon by the powers of Europe with in- 
difference — but the dismemberment of Mexico, as a nation, is another 
question ; and that she will be dismembered by an enforcement, on 
our part, of the Rio Grande boundary, no man can doubt, who is at 
all acquainted with the present situation of Mexico. But, upo-n this 
point, 1 shall speak more at length in future numbers. 



20 

For the purpose of being distinctly understood, I will detain you a 
moment, with a concise description of the topography of Texas. 
Along the Gulf of Mexico is a strip of land, from thirty to fifty miles 
wide, that, with slight exceptions, is low and alluvial. The borders 
of the streams that pass through it arc; well wooded, to the extent, on 
an average, of five miles back. Between these streams are vast 
tracts ol low prairie land, without irrigation, unfit for cultivation, and 
considered of so little value that they are never located upon, except 
in connection with the woodland. These comparatively waste lands 
constitute about one half of the belt of low land bordering on the 
Gulf. Back of the low land is what is usually called the rolling 
land, extending to the mountains, a distance of from one hundred and 
fifty to two hundred miles. Much of this range is, from want of 
water, and other causes, totally unfit for cultivation. Back of this 
is the mountain region, which will not probably be settled for centu- 
ries to come. I have shown from the best authority — that of Gen. 
Austin — that Texas does not contain over 115,000,000 acres. From 
this area should be deducted the water and waste land, which would 
reduce it to less than 100,000,000. I have before shown. that the ac- 
knowledged land claims exceeded 80,000,000 of acres ; leaving but 
20,000,000 of acres now undisposed of. While there is no country 
on this continent that possesses land of such excellent quality as 
Texas, there is none that has comparatively so large a portion of 
that which is worthless. I shall be borne out, by every Texian, in 
the assertion, that at least one third of her soil is so destitute of water, 
that it cannot be used for agricultural purposes. All the land of any 
value, both in the low and rolling country, has long since been sur- 
veyed and taken up — at least to such an extent that all late surveying 
has been done far in the interior, and a large part of it out of Texas 
proper. An English surveyor, who had been three years in the 
country, and constantly employed, assured me, nearly a year since, 
that there was not a league of land unlocated, within two hundred 
miles of the Gulf, that was worth the cost of a survey. If, then, the 
Annexation is to be confined to Texas proper — and 1 think I shall be 
able to fully convince any unprejudiced mind that it must be — these 
United States will realize, at the utmost, but twenty millions of acres 
of refuse lands, at present of no value, and not likely to be of any until 
the country shall have a population as dense as that of Massachusetts. 
The reader will [)erceive, at once, that, as a matter of national spec- 
ulation, we shall find, if the project of Annexation is successful, that, 
in the words of Franklin, " we have paid too dear for the whistle." 



21 

LETTER VII 



January 15. 



Sir : — The act of the Congress of Texas, defining her boundary, 
passed Dec. 19th, 1836, reads as follows : 

That from and after the passing of this act, the civil and poliiiral juris- 
diction of this Ri'puhlic be, and is hereby declared to extend Id tiic tollowing 
boundaries, to wit: beginning at the moutli of" tlie t;abine river, and running 
West along the Gulf of Mexico three leagues from land, to the mouth of the 
Rio Grande — thence up the principal strt^ain of tlie said river to its source — 
thence due Nortli to the forty-second degree of North latitude — thence along 
the l)oundary line, as defined in the treaty between the United iStales and 
Spain to the beginning. 

■ In the Treaty now before the Senate, the question of boundary is 
not alluded to — nor has it been touched upon, so far as I have seen, 
in any of the public documents connected with the negotiation. One 
would suppose that the extent of territory embraced in the proposed 
cession would be the first point discussed. Why is the plain question 
of the right of Texas to her assumed boundary sedulously avoided, 
by the friends of the measure.^ They have presented annexation 
as a party question — and they still discuss it as such. Annex Texas, 
say they, and certain results will follow — and when the question is 
asked. What portion of North America is covered by it.' — they point 
you to the Act above recited, and the new maps of that country, and 
say — that is Texas. Fortunately for public justice and iniernaiional 
rights, neither acts of Congress, nor the tools of an engraver, can 
convey a right, where none legally exists. 

In the Declaration of Independence, made by the inhabitants, in 
March, 1836, it is expressly declared to be " the declaration of the 
people of Texas.'''' In every public document emanating from the 
assemblies of the people, prior and subsequent to that declaration, 
their jurisdiction is limited to Texas proper, or the department of 
Texas. Neither Coahuila, Chihuahua, or New Mexico, took part in 
the revolution. Not a battle was fought beyond the limits of Texas 
proper — nor has she ever had possession of a foot of the soil over 
which she has now, on paper, extended her jurisdiction. She has 
not, on the north, even the doubtful right of an assumed natural 
boundary, even though she should claim the Rio Grande on the south 
as such. In fact, her claim is based on no other foundation than her 
own act. She has no right from possession, conquest, concession, 
occupation, or the assent of the inhabitants. The jurisdiction is, and 
has ever been, in the States clainning the territory. By an act of 
Congress, passed in December, 1838, to raise troops for the defence 
of the frontier, the Neuces and Red river are named as the extreme 
outposts of her territory. To assume the position that the mere 
claim of Texas constitutes a right which she may convey to a third 
power, when that right has not a shadow of foutidation in the prin- 



22 

ciples of international law, appears to me absurd. If the principle is 
to be allowed, why not make the annexation at least a decent 
speculation. The Texian Congress is now in cession. Let our 
Charge des affaires apply for the passage of an act, supplementary 
to the above, including Upper and Lower California withm her 
boundary. With this addition, it might possibly be a national spec- 
ulation, with all its incumbrances. For myself, I cannot conceive 
how the strongest advocates of annexation can, in any way, defend 
the claim of Texas to the territory beyond her original limits, as a 
department of Mexico. Were the territory which she thus claims, 
entirely, as it is partially, in the undisturbed possession of roving 
Indians, the claim would be doubtful — but, including as it does part of 
two States, and almost the whole of New Mexico, a population that has 
taken no part in her contest — that has been and still continues at 
■open war with her — it does appear to me the height of absurdity tt) 
even give the claim a serious consideration. But we are told that 
the boundary is to be a subject of future negotiation. In other words, 
it is to be left to the Lion to secure the prey of the Jackal I. 

These United States, with a power capable of crushing Mexico at 
a blow, are to settle the question of the territorial right of Texas. 
Does any man, in his senses, believe that men, who have gone all 
lengths with the negotiation as a party measure — who have based 
their political faith upon its success — and who predicate future power, 
upon rendering the residt acceptable to the mass of their parly — will 
yield one foot of the soil so acquired, to so contemptible a power as 
Mexico ? Not one man in one thousand, of the Loco Foco party, 
will ever stop to question our right to the assumed boundary. What 
Texas claimed will be the claim of the party — and, right or wrong, 
the administration will be compelled to submit. It is but folly to talk 
of public honesty and justice, when the price of both is the exclusion 
from the loaves and fishes of office. But let us look at another, and 
by far the most important light in which this subject can be placed. 
Can, or will Mexico negotiate a boundary with us, provided Texas is 
annexed.^ To answer this question, we must fully understand the 
character of the Mexican population, and its influence upon that 
government. Difference of religion, the influence of the priesthood, 
the war of the last nine years, and the compulsory enlistments in the 
army, for the several attempted invasions of Texas, have created, 
throughout Mexico, the most bitter hatred against the Texians. It 
has been the policy of Santa Anna, and his satellites, to increase this 
feeling to as great an extent as possible. Late events have trans- 
ferred part of these feelings to the government and people of these 
United States. Grossly ignorant — acting only from impulse, or the 
fear of their superiors — the people are ever the ready tools of the 
ambitious and designing. A large portion of the popularity of Santa 
Anna m;iy be attributed to his avowed enmity to Texas. The sur- 
render of that department, or the attempt to negotiate for its surrender, 
would be the signal for a revolution that would overturn any adminis- 



23 

tration. Every Mexican believes his country to be the greatest and 
most powerful nation in the world — and the idea that these United 
States could successfully contend against them, would be to them an 
absurdity. No individual in power, in Mexico, would dare to enter- 
tain the idea of surrendering Texas — nor could such a surrender be 
obtained, except by force. With this character, of the mal(;rial of 
which the nation is composed, it will be seen, at once, that any attempt 
at a peaceable negotiation, must fail. I mean these remarks as ap- 
plying to the negotiation for the cession of Texas proper. But there 
is another, and yet more powerful objection. In the correspondence 
of our foreign ministers^ in relation to the view that the great powers- 
of Europe take of the proposed measure, the replies have referred 
literally to Texas, or Texas proper, as it is found on all the maps,, 
excepting those got up for this occasion. Our government, and that 
of Texas, have carefully kept in the dark the fact that almost one- 
entire State of the Mexican Confederacy, and a large part of twO' 
others, were included in these negotiations. When our Government 
shall attempt — as, in case of annexation, it most assuredly will — to- 
obtain the assumed boundary, the transaction will assume an entire- 
new feature in the eyes of France and England. They will be likely 
to return across the Atlantic the words of President Monroe — "That 
they cannot look with indifference upon any attempt to interfere with> 
the policy of the Southern Republics." It will be in the eyes of 
Europe, a dismemberment of the Mexican nation — a proceeding that 
will not be tamely submitted to. The three States, cut up by the 
assumed boundary, are the most important in the confederacy. They 
bear about the same relation to the Mexican confederacy that New 
York, Virginia, and Maryland bear to ours. 

By the constitutional law, the Supreme Government have no power- 
to cede any part of the territory of a State, without its consent, any 
more than our General Government would have the power to cede a 
part of Massachusetts. From what I have already said of the char- 
acter of the people, it will be seen, at once, that the consent of these 
States could not be obtained. With Coahuila and New Mexico, it 
yvould be their almost total annihilation. Of course, under no cir- 
cumstances could it be expected of them. If these opinions are 
correct — and that they are, I feel confident from much personal 
observation — we can acquire no claim from Texas that we can hon- 
orably enforce, beyond the territory embraced in her original limits — 
and the establishment of those limits, by treaty, is problematical. 
The attempt to establish her asssumed boundary, could only be 
maintained at the expense of a war, and at the hazard of European 
interference — so that our possession, under any circumstances, must 
be a possession secured by force. I have thus, as I promised, briefly 
considered the question of boundary — and will, in my next, take up 
the subject of the holders of Texian Land Scrip. 



24 

LETTER VIII. 

January 21. 

Sir : — The next point to wliich I would respectfully direct your 
attention, is — who are the holders of Texian Scrip and securities.'* 
In the answer to this question is involved the whole history of the 
project of Annexation. Up to the period of the revolution of Texas 
— add, in fact, up to the application of Texas, under the administra- 
tion of Mr. Van Buren, for admission into the Union, our public 
journals were silent as to any claims of the United States upon her 
territory. The undefined limits of Louisiana, in the Spanish treaty 
of cession to France — and the vague manner in which the boundary 
is laid down in Mr. Jefferson's treaty for the purchase — might 
have left the question of right doubtful, had not subsequent trea- 
ties settled the question. The treaty with Spain, for llie cession 
of Florida, contains an absolute abandonment, on the part of the 
United Slates, of all territorial claims south of the Sabine. The idea 
of re-annexation has answered its purpose, as a party humbug, in 
arousing the prejudices of political fanatics ; but that it has ever been 
seriously advanced by a sound statesman, I very much doubt. The 
question of Annexation has not originated from any presumed na- 
tional claim, nor from any particular sympathy, which we, as a 
people, feel towards Texas. Had she been unsuccessful in her strug- 
gle for independence, or had her independence been acknowledged 
by Mexico, on the return of Santa Anna after the battle of San Ja- 
cinto, the present question would never have been agitated in Con- 
gress. Even in its present position, it cannot be considered as an 
application on the part of Texas — nor does it appear to be required 
by her, as a means of prosperity or defence. 

The causes of the agitation of this momentous project are to be 
sought for within the limits of our own territory, and among our own 
citizens. To illustrate my meaning, I will give a brief history of 
the speculations in Land Scrip. Prior to the revolution, the land 
titles issued by the Mexican authorities, under Empressario grants, 
were almost exclusively held !>}' the inhabitants, and the military 
grants by the grantees, or by citizens of Mexico. The facility witb 
which lands could be acquired by emigration, or with which they 
could be obtained from the States of Mexico, rendered them of 
little value. In the market of the United States, they were not a 
matter of speculation — at least where their value was known. The 
colonists, with Yankee shrewdness, saw, that while that state of things 
existed, the lands they had acquired would be valueless — that if even 
a nominal separation from Mexico could be brought about, and the 
continued accumulation of new titles be stopped, those then in exis- 
tence would be immensely increased in value. Every inhabitant of 
the country, being from necessity a land-holder, was easily induced 
to join in measures of a revolutionary character. The contest once 



25 

commenced, the sympathy felt by us, as a people allied to them in 
blood and language, gave full assurance of their ultimate success. 
Their revolutidn commenced at a period unexampled in the annals 
of our couniry, for wild and visionary speculations. The repudia- 
tion of the Empressario and other grants of the State of Coahuila 
and Tex;is, made the then existing titles assume a value, in the eyes 
of speculators, far above their actual worth. Titles to an inmiense 
amount were readily disposed of, in the South and West — many of 
them manufactured expressly to meet the ready demand. The 
Bounty Lands given to those who joined the army, issued m the form 
of certificates, were sold to speculators to any extent. The battle of 
San Jacinto, and its astounding results, drew at once the attention of 
wealthy and influential men to the lauds of Texas, selling, even as 
thev then were, at one quarter of the [;rice of our own public lands. 
They saw, from the highly excited state of popular feeling, that 
the recognition of the Independence of Texas was morally certain — 
and that, in case of such recognition by these United Stales, an im- 
mense increase in the value of land would accrue — nor did they, for 
one moment, doubt that Mexico, humbled as she was, wiih her Chief 
Magistrate a prisoner, would tamely submit to the loss. Immense 
sums were, under these views, invested in Land Scrip. But what 
was the result .^ The influence of speculators u|)on Congress, sec- 
onded by the warm enthusiasm of the people, aroused at the success 
of a nation struggling for liberty, obtained the recognition of Texian 
Independence, in which we were rapidly seconded by both France 
and England. Contrary, however, to the general expectation, hos- 
tilities continued between Mexico and 'i'exas. The interes«t on the 
public debt, incurred during her struggle — the necessary expendi- 
tures for her defence — required new -nid continued issues of Land 
Scrip. As an Independent Nation, it was soon seen that her revenue 
could not, for many years to come, be equal to her expenditure — 
and that, instead of the holders of Land Scrip being able to effect 
sales at a profit, the issues and grants of the Government were greater 
than the demand. In this state of things, the real and imaginary 
holders, at the South and West, saw that, unless some means were 
devised to stop the increase of Land Scrip by the Government, or of 
that which was in fact the same thing, the continued increase of the 
public debt for which the public domain was pledged — that they must 
inevitably sicrifice their property in the country. The only remedy 
for the difficulties under which Texas labored, was admission into 
the Union. That would at once give a value to the scrip and titles, 
equal to, if not greater than, the lands of these United States. The 
measure, apparently so tempting to our Government, and so profitable 
to them, was urged upon the Congress of Texas. As may he sup- 
posed, when the pocket of every member of that body was interested, 
the project found but few opponents The offer was made. No 
definite action was then taken upon it — and, subsequently, it was 
withdrawn by Texas. Here let me request the reader to bear in 
4 



26 

mind that, at this period, it was well known that there was not even 
a respectable minority of the people in favor of the measure ; and 
that the offer was refused, by an administration avowing to be gov- 
erned by the same general political principles as the party that have 
elected James K. Polk. 

Since the withdrawal of the proposition, the people of Texas have 
become more and more impoverished, and the scrip and securities 
have been gradually losing value, until this second agitation of the 
question. The accidental accession of Tyler to the Presidency, and 
his evident determination to court the Democratic party, by open 
treachery to the pariy that had elected him — offered an opportunity 
of reviving the Annexation question. The policy of making another 
proposition for admission into the Union, was urged upon the Texian 
Government by many large landholders of the South. That Gov- 
ernment, however, refused to repeat an offer that had so lately been 
treated with indifference. It did not object, however, to enter into 
negotiations, subject to the final ratification of the two Governments. 
To make the project a parly question, and to identify it vvith Southern 
interests, by making it subservient to the extension of slave represen- 
tation in Congress, was all that was necessary to insure the hearty 
concurrence of John Tyler. The immense quantity of floating scrip, 
good and bad, existing in the West and South, was well known by 
the leading Loco Foco politicians. The manner in which it could be 
brought to bear upon the Ballot Box, was equally well known. Under 
the idea that it would secure his nomination in the Convention at 
Baltimore, and make him the favorite candidate of the self-styled 
Democratic party, John Tyler was easily induced to commence the 
secret negotiations that resulted in the Treaty now before the Senate. 

I have thus given a history of the views and operations of the hold- 
ers of Texian lands. If it does not carry, in itself, intrinsic evidence 
of its truth, when compared with the facts and statements now before 
the public, no asseverations of mine could give it additional weight. 
It may be asked, why a large majority of this scrip should be found 
in the hands of the Democratic party ? For, unless it is so, the posi- 
tion I have taken, I may be told, is not tenable. 1 shall, however, 
defer the answer until my next letter, as I have already exceeded my 
usual limits — and I shall also show, by the characters of the actors in 
this political drama, that money, and not patriotism, was originally 
the prompter of this Annexation movement. 



27 



LETTER IX. 

February 4. 

Sir : — Shortly after the establishment of the Provisional Govern- 
ment, in November, 1835, Messrs. Austin, Archer and Wharton 
were despatciied to the United States, as commissioners of Texas, 
for the purpose of negotiating, if possible, with our government, for 
assistance ; and with full powers to contract loans, furnish munitions 
of war, and conunission officers for the army and navy. Before 
leaving New Orleans for Washington, they contracted a loan of two 
hundred thousand dollars, upon the security of the public lands. 
With this sum was commenced the war with Mexico. An agency 
was established at New Orleans, with full powers to raise and equip 
a navy, accept the services of volunteers for the army, forward 
supplies, &c. This agency, from the distracted state of the country, 
and the difficulty of holding any communication with the actual 
government, became, de facto, for a tmae, the executive government 
of Texas — presenting the singular anomaly of a war, virtually con- 
ducted and supported by aliens, holding no allegiance to either party, 
and residing upon the territory of a nation at peace with both parties, 
and professing the most perfect neutrality. At the time of the estab- 
lishment of this agency, Mexico had a fleet which commanded the 
Gulf. No aid could, with safety, be sent to Texas, unless she could 
be made superior to her enemies on the sea. Within three months, 
four heavy armed schooners were equipped, within sight of the 
Custom House at New Orleans — and, within four months, they drove 
into port, or destroyed, every Mexican cruiser. The loss of the 
command of the sea was the prime cause of all the disasters of Santa 
Anna, and the means of his eventual disgraceful defeat. In this bold 
and successful manoeuvre, executed with a rapidity unexampled in 
history, lies the secret of the extraordinary success of the revolution 
of Texas. During the conflict, transports were continually leaving 
New Orleans, filled with armed volunteers. Munitions of war were 
openly purchased and shipped, and, in one case, an armed steamboat 
and three transports, with five hundred volunteers, under Gen. Green, 
fitted out and sailed from the Levee, directly in front of the Custom 
House, with drums beating, and Texian colors flying. These re- 
marks are made to show the indirect support given by the adminis- 
tration of Gen. Jackson, to the revolt in Texas. To say that our 
government were ignorant of these movements, or had not the power 
to stop them, is absurd. The public favor shown to the cause, gave 
it, with Jackson men, the character of a party movement. The 
leading and opulent men of Louisiania, Mississippi, and Alabama, 
were, at that period, almost universally ranged under the Jackson 
flag. It was evident that both the administration and the party 
favored the revolution. They were confident that, with the power 



28 

of their party, whatever measures were determined upon must be 
successful. With these views, they could have no doubt of the 
eventual independence of Texas, and of her acknowledgment, as a 
nation, by these United States. They felt a confidence in her Fcrip 
and securities, which was not, and could not be felt by the olher 
party. They invested largely in ihe country. The result and the 
efficts of these investments, I have endeavored to explain, fully, in 
my last letter. Beyond the natural inferences to be drawn irom 
political predilections, I have olher and personal knowledge, from an 
acquaintance with the [)arties, to warrant me in asserting that a vast 
majority of the Land 'I'itles of Texas are now in the hands of the 
Democratic party, so called. As a further illustration of this position, 
I would call the attention of the reader to the fact, that the project of 
Annexation has found its most zealous supporters among members 
of the old Jackson party — and that the must noted leaders in the 
project are not only Loco Focos, but are known to be large holders 
of the scrip. Having thus attempted to sIkjw, in the aggregate, who 
are the holders of 'I'exian securities, I will now detain you, for a 
moment, with some of the details of the question I proposed to answer. 
The quantity of land under cultivation and use, in Texas, does not 
exceed three millions of acres. 'J'he quantity owned by citizens 
resident of that country, does not exceed seven millions. The 
quantity owned in Europe has lately been much increased, by con- 
ditional grants, made by th(! Texian Government, for the introduction 
of English, French, and German emigrants. These grants are not 
included in my former estimate of land claims. 'J'he nature of these 
grants has not yet transpired, nor the extent to which they have been 
completed. They will, no doubt, amount, when the contracts are 
fulfilled, to several millions of acres. The house of Baring, Broth- 
ers, &. Co. are the owners of one million of acres, being the amount 
of a grant made by the Mexican government to Col. Milam. This 
grant, I believe, has never been located, and is not included in the 
Texian official schedule of grants. John Woodward, formerly of 
New York, has made a claim through the British government, for 
about two millions of acres, growing out of the vitiated Empressario 
contracts. His claim, however, is similar to that of the Land Com- 
panies named in my second letter, and is totally unfounded. Beyond 
these, there are but a ftiw lilies, and those small, held in Europe. 
As a rough estimate, I will give the whole amount held on the other 
side of the Atlantic, at seven millions of acres — leaving to be owned 
by ci.'izons of the United States, nearly sixty millions of acres. I 
could, if circumstances required it, or I thought it advisable, give the 
naaies of distinguished individuals of the Loco Foco party, who are 
large holdeis of this property. The o[)ponents of this measure, 
however, have too good a cause to require a descent to personality 
to sustain their position. I will here make a remark in regard to 
those who are the holders of these lands, which I think will have 
some influence on the public mind. We, as a people, cannot refrain 



29 

from feeling a deep sympathy for a nation, struggling to establish 
institutions based upon the same principles as our own. In the 
present case, we naturally associate in our minds the present pop- 
ulatian of Texas, and the presumed owners of her soil, with those 
who fought the battles of her revolution — with those who were 
massacred at Goliad — with those who gloriously fell at the Alamo — 
or who returned, in triumph, from the immortal field of San Jacinto, 
A large portion of our fellow citizens, actuated by the most noble 
and generous impulses, look upon the success of Annexation as the 
means of securing, to the^^e bold pioneers of liberty, that for which 
they have so freely poured out their blood. I would have it distinctly 
understood, that it is not so. With here and there a solitary excep- 
tion, a new race of men occupy tiie places of the revolutionary 
colonists. The Vandal speculators of the North have literally over- 
run ihe new republic. Of the whole number of those who constitute 
the present Government and Congress, there are only four names 
that stand prominent in her revolutionary history. Of the volunteers- 
who entered her army, I am confident, not one hundred men are 
now within her limits. The certificates of bounty land, received for 
their services, have long since passed, for a mere song, into the 
hands of speculators. Of the old residents of Texas — men who, to 
forward the revolution, pledged every dollar of their property — there 
can scarcely be found one who is not in poverty, nor one who has 
not been compelled to sacrifice the very soil for which he fought, to 
relieve himself from pecuniary embarrassment. The bulk of the 
landed property of Texas is, at the present moment, in the hands of 
speculators and foreign emigrants, who had no lot or share in the 
struggle for liberty — property, which has cost them comparatively 
nothing — and which, should the project of Annexation succeed, will 
divide among them at least one hundred millions of dollars. 

1 notice that a resolution has been offered in Congress, calling 
upon the Executive to present official statements of the actual boun-- 
dary of Texas, and of the claims upon her public domain — and, also, 
of the amount of her public debt. Should Congress conclude to defer 
the question, until they have before them such official documents^ 
obtained from the government of Texas, it would be useless to 
expend paper and ink in the discussion of the measure — for the 
whole matter will descend to the ''tomb of the Capulets." The 
Texian government understand their own position too well to present 
any such official statements, even if they had the power or ability to 
prepare them — and this I know they could not do, with any degree 
of accuracy, without years of laborious investigation. So far as 
regards the public debt of Texas, the amount is unkown, even to the 
government itself In my next letter I will give a statement of the 
probable amount, from her public documents and known expenditures 



30 

LETTER X. 

February 7. 

Sir : — I propose, in this letter, to give a statement of the National 
Debt of Texas, its origin, and probable amount. However much 
that Government may feel disposed to answer the call of the House 
of Representatives upon this question, it is not, for reasons I shall 
hereafter give, in her power to exhibit anything like an accurate state- 
ment. You, sir, are well conversant with the position of the finan- 
cial affairs of the original thirteen States of our confederacy, — imme- 
diately subsequent to the Revolution. The position of the finances 
of Texas is nearly similar. Great efforts have been made by the 
Government, under the present Constitution, to arrange and consoli- 
date the public debt. To some extent they have been successsful. 
Of the immense mass of claims that originated between the time of 
the dissolution of the first Convention of Delegates, and the battle of 
San Jacinto, while the country was virtually without an organized 
government, but few have ever been settled. Two attempts have 
been tnade, to examine into the validity of these claims, and to con- 
vert those passed upon into a funded debt. An act was passed in 
June, 1837, authorizing them to be funded, to the extent of three 
millions. In a few months that amount was settled, and the office 
closed. In January, 1839, an act was passed, appointing Commis- 
sioners to examine into the existing claims, and issue scrip to those 
who should prove their demands. Claims were presented, under the 
act, to such an enormous amount, that the executive ordered the office 
closed in the April following. What amount was funded, in that 
short period, has, I believe, never been made public — at least, there 
has never been, to my knowledge, any official report of the amount, 
made by the government. For the purpose of my calculation, I will 
place the amount of scrip issued under the act at three millions ; 
although there is good reason to believe, from the manner in which 
the office was closed, that a much larger amount was issued. In No- 
vember, 1836, an act was passed, authorizing a loan of five millions. 
Commissioners were appointed to proceed to the United States and 
Europe, to effect the loan. Only a small amount was obtained. In 
May, 1838, another act was passed, authorizing a loan of five mil- 
lions, under provisions similar to the preceding act. Gov. Hamilton, 
of South Carolina, was one of the Commissioners for effecting it. 
Great exertions were made, and several acts were subsequently passed 
by Congress, to facilitate the action of the Commissioners. How far, 
or to what extent, they were successful, has never been promulgated. 
I have, however, good reasons to believe that the government was 
involved, in cash received, scrip issued, and expenses incurred, at 
least one million. By an act, passed December, 1836, the Executive 
was authorized to issue scrip to meet appropriations, to the extent of 
one million. By an act r^'-^-r.H i^ June, 1837, the Executive was 



31 

authorized to issue promissory notes, tu tlie extent of five hundred 
thousand dollars — in November, of the same year, two hundred and 
fifty thousand dollars — and in May, 1838, to an amount sulhcient to 
meet the accumulated interest upon the pul)lic debt. How much was 
thus issued, (or interest, is unknown. It could not, however, have been 
less than five hundred thousand dollars. Another act was passed, in 
the same month, authorizing an additional issue of one million, to 
meet ajipropriations. By an act, passed January, 1839, a loan of one 
million was authorized, to be made in the United Slates. This loan 
is said to have been efiected, at an enormous sacrifice. In the same 
month, an issue of notes was also made, by act of Congress, of two 
hundred and fifty thousand dollars. From the year 1836 to 1840, 
sundry acts were passed, authorizing the issue of scrip and treasury 
notes, to meet individual claims, in all amounting to about five hun- 
dred thousand dollars. Upon all these amounts, the government have 
been paying an interest of ten per cent, for an average of seven 
years. It will thus be seen that the amount of debts, drawn from 
the known official acts of Texas, is twelve viiUions of dollars — and 
the interest on the same, allowing the average of seven years, eight 
millions four hundred thousand. Making the enormous indebtedness 

of TWENTY MILLIONS FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. It may 

be, that a small part of these appropriations of promissory notes were 
re-issues — but it does not appear that such was the fact, in the acts 
authorizing them. It is, also, well known, both in Texas and the 
Stales, that there are demands against the Government, to a large 
amount, which have never been funded — and which, of course, do not 
appear in any of her official acts or statements. To what extent they 
will be brought forward, in case of their assumption by our govern- 
ment, is uncertain. They may, however, with certainty, be set down, 
at several millions. 

The question will naturally be asked — How is it, that, in so short a 
contest — carried on principally by volunteers from these United States, 
who were never paid, to any extent, except in the certificates of 
bounty land — that such an immense debt should have been contracted .' 
Texas commenced the contest without the materials of war, money, 
or credit. These facts were well known. The first issues of paper 
made were negotiated at a large discount. To purchase the muni- 
tions of war, she was obliged to pay, in her paper, a price increased 
equivalently to the extent of depreciation of that paper. This paper, 
as it increased in the market, became of less and less value. So 
great was its depreciation, that it could not be used at all, in purchases. 
The government was compelled, through agents, to sell its own 
promissory notes in the market, in many instances at a discount of 
fifty to seventy per cent., to meet its ordinary expenses. In this way, 
two or three prices were paid for every article purchased, either in 
Texas or this country. From the want of an organized system ot 
finance, the most profuse and profligate expenditures were made, in 
many instances by assumed authority, which the government have 



32 

since, from circumstances, been compelled to confirm. It will, also, 
be borne in mind that, at no period since the revolution have the 
revenues of the country been equal to the civil expenditures of the 
government — that her debt has been, and is now, continually increas- 
ing in amount — and that it has not been the policy, nor for the inter- 
est of Texas, that the amount of her indebtedness should be publicly 
known. Thus no farther exertions have been made to ascertain the 
amount, than were absolutely necessary to answer the calls of her 
creditors. This statement of the public debt of the territory proposed 
to be annexed, is not fTJven in a spirit of exaggeration, nor as an 
argument against annexation. I have no fears of its ever being 
assumed by our government, until the amount is distinctly ascertained, 
or the amount to be assumed is definitely settled. In the present 
position of the question, jt can have but little weight in opposition to 
the measure. As a means, however, of gratifying public curiosity, 
it may, even in its dry details, be read with interest by those who are 
seeking for light upon this dark question. 

There is one fact, in regard to the character of the public debt of 
Texas, which, in case of the assumption of any part of it by these 
United States, becomes a matter of serious consideration. The issues 
of the promissory notes of Texas, and that part of the funded debt 
predicated upon stock issued under the acts of June, 1837, and 
January, 1839, are but to a very small extent in the hands of the 
original holders. The uncertainty of the redemption of the notes, 
and the poverty of the original holders of demands, have caused 
them to be sacrificed for a trifling sum ; and almost the entire amount 
of the stock th U has been issued is now in the hands of speculators, 
who have paid but a small per centage upon the fac«=^ of their cer- 
tificates. How far it may be considered an act of justice to pay the 
full amount, and the large interest that has accumulated, when it was 
never contemplated, at the time of their issue, that they were predi- 
cated upon anything but the public faith of Te.xas, I leave to the 
Xriends of Annexation to determine. 



LETTER XI. 

February 13. 

Sir: — I have observed, in many of the public documents connected 
with this question, and in the speeches delivered both in and out of 
Congress, that much importance is attached to the idea of the Rio 
del Norte being the natural boundary of these United States, Gen. 
Jackson, in his zeal to consummate this act of party frenzy, has 
advanced the opinion that the acquisition of Texas is absolutely 



33 

necessary to the security of the Southern States. Unfortunately for 
the quiet and welfare of our country, his opinions have influenced 
thousands of voters. At the time of the negotation of the treaty for 
the cession of the Floridas, when in the full possession of those 
brilliant military talents, with which he was so eminently endowed, 
he avowed the belief, (in a letter to Mr. Monroe,) that the South and 
West had nothing to fear from an invasion, by the way of Texas. 
Why his opinions have been so materially changed, in so short a 
period, we are not informed. There has certainly been no change 
in the topography of the country — and, in relative position, the South 
has more ample means of defence now than she had then. 

I propose to devote this letter to the discussion of the policy of 
seeking the Rio del Norte as a boundary. My remarks, at this time, 
will be confined to the actual position of the two countries. No 
movement has, as yet, been made in Texas, to form an alliance, or 
commercial connection, with any European power, giving that power 
exclusive privileges ; nor have we at present any good reason to 
suppose that such is her intention. The present question, therefore, 
is — Is the acquisition of the present territory of Texas necessary for 
the future welfare or security of the Southern and Western States.* 

I will suppose, to illustrate my remarks, that Texas has been 
already annexed — and that the Rio del Norte, and a line running 
due north, from its sources, to the 42d degree of north latitude, is our 
boundary. What would then be the position of these United Slates, 
in case of a war with any of the large maritime powers of Europe.* 
We have added to our now comparatively defenceless seaboard, three 
hundred and forty miles in extent, along the whole lire of which 
there is not a single port in which one of our smallest sloops-of-war 
couldfind shelter from an eneiny — a coast so indented with bayous 
and rivers, that it could not be sufficiently fortified to protect it 
from the ravages of an enemy, without appropriating our entire rev- 
enue for the next ten years. 

From the character of the climate, in the vicinity of the Gulf of 
Mexico, there can never be a white population on the coast sufficient 
for its defence. The necessity and value of slave labor will forever 
give superiority in numbers to the African race. The attempts that 
would inevitably be made, by an enemy, to excite such a population 
to revolt, would require a stationary force greater than would be 
required for the defence of our whole Atlantic coast. Let us turn to 
the Rio del Norte — what is our position there? That river is navi- 
gable, for steamboats drawing from four to five feet of water, nearly 
seven hundred miles. Its western bank will be in possession of 
Mexico, a nation ever ready to sacrifice the integrity of her territory 
to the highest bidder. The probability of an enemy obtaining foothold 
in that country, from which to annoy us, (considering the character 
of the government and population,) is infinitely greater than that from 
Texas, as an independent nation. The past political history of 
Mexico warrants the belief that, were our territory on the Gulf 
5 



34 

contiguous to hers, any of the large powers of Europe, at war with 
us, could, without difficulty, negotiate for a passage through, or the 
establishment of depots within her territory. The Rio Grande del 
Norte is a shallow stream, that can be forded by an invading army 
through nearly its whole extent. To defend ils passage it would 
require a line of posts of at least five hundred miles in extent. II the 
reader will run his eye over the map, he will perceive that the course 
of the river is nearly parallel with the present boundary of the United 
States — and that, were the western bank in possession of an enemy, 
our extreme Western States would be in as much peril as the South- 
ern — and, perhaps, more — as the South could only be invaded by 
way of the Red river, while the West offers an access by land, 
through the rolling lands North of that river. The brief remarks I 
have made, in regard to the defence of such a frontier, apply with 
equal force to smuggling, and the escape of runaway negroes. 
Along such a line of frontier, it is evident that neither could be pre- 
vented. With Texas, as an independent nation, arrangements could 
be made to stop smuggling, and insure the recovery of blacks; while 
with Mexico, as a non-slaveholding country, every slave that crossed 
the river would be lost. 

1 will now proceed to an examination of the present boundary of 
these United States, and endeavor to show its superiority, in all the 
points under which the friends of Annexation present that of the Rio 
Grande del Norte. First, in regard to ils military position, as facil- 
itating the means of defence for the South and West. The land on 
the eastern bank of the Sabine river, and from it to the Mississippi 
and Red river, is low and alluvial, intersected, in all directions, with 
creeks and bayous, and impassable by an invading army. The 
Southern States can only be approached, through Texas, by way of 
the Red river. There does not, now, exist any other internal com- 
munication, by which an army of one thousand men, without artillery, 
could be transported to the Mississippi. If, then, the Red river is the 
only possible point at which an invading army could reach us — or, at 
least, an army of such force as to cause a moment's apprehension — 
and that such is the fact no individual, having the least knowledge of 
the topography of the country, will deny — what have we to fear 
from such an invasion } Let us suppose that England had possession 
of all Texas, and was about to invade us with an army of fifty thou- 
sand men — suppose that they have reached the Red river, after a 
laborious march of four hundred miles from the sea coast, how are 
they to be transported down the river.' The impediments in the 
navigation would prevent the use of steamboats, except of the small- 
est class ; and so large a number as would be required could rot be 
built within one year. Should they succeed in reaching the Missis- 
sippi, they must ascend or descend the river by water — and, unless 
they had the superiority upon that element, they would be utterly 
powerless. 

Now, let us look for a moment at our means of resistance. The 



35 

mouth of the Red river can be so fortified as to prevent the passage 
of any force that may attempt to descend it. We have now on the 
Mississippi, and its tributaries, over six hundred steamboats; and can 
bring to the mouth of the Red river, in ten days, two hundred 
thousand men. Any military man can see, at a glance, as readily 
as General Jackson saw, in 1820, that an enemy, no matter what 
might be his force, would be perfectly at our mercy in such a 
position. 

Let us now look, for a moment, at the two prominent grievances, 
set forth in such strong light by John Tyler, and for the relief of 
which, annexation is, in his opinion, so desirable. I mean, the escape 
of negroes, and the prevention of smuggling. There is, now, but 
one means of conveyance for slaves who may attempt to escape to 
Texas, (that is, by water) either in sail vessels, by sea, or in steam- 
boats up the Red river. Both these are guarded against, by laws of 
so penal a character, that not two cases occur in a year — and, when 
they do occur, the government of Texas immediately surrenders them 
to the owners, even without an official requisition. With the Rio 
Grande as a boundary, they have but to wade across a narrow, 
shallow stream, and they are free. Now, they have but two ave- 
nues of escape, and those doubly guarded. Then, they will have 
some eight hundred miles of unguarded frontier. The plea of pre- 
venting smuggling is equally fallacious. The only points in Texas, 
at which it has ever been, or ever will probably be attempted, are on 
the Sabine or Red river. From the expense and labor of trans- 
portation from the sea coast, no European manufactures will ever be 
brought by the Red river. What there can be of the productions 
of Mexico, or Northern Texas, to smuggle, I leave the reader to 
determine. The only way in which it can be efTected, on the Sabine, 
is by water — a means of conveyance always under the control of the 
Custom House. That part of the river that can be used for such a 
purpose is limited, and easily guarded. The avenues for the intro- 
duction of goods are few — and any invasion of the law easily detected. 
To remedy this evil — which, if it exists, exists but to a trifling extent 
— we are to substitute a river navigable to ten times the extent, and 
increase the facilities of smusslinfi; a thousand fold. I have thus 
attempted to show that our present boundary is, for all purposes of 
National security, not only the best that could have been selected, 
but, in fact, the true natural boundary. At the time of its selection, 
the character of the soil between the Mississippi and the Sabine was 
unknown ; had it have been known a more favorable selection could 
not have been made. Nature has given us a wall of defence upon 
our southern frontier, more efficient than the art of man could devise. 
While we remain within that wall, we shall be safe and united. 
Overleap it, and all may be lost. 



36 

LETTER XII. 

February 15. 

Sir : — In my last letter I endeavored to show that the extension of 
our territory beyond our present boundary would have the effect of 
weakening the defensive powers of the Southern Slates. As 1 stated, 
at the commencement of the letter, my remarks were predicated on 
the present relative position of the two countries. That il would be 
more advantageous to these United States, that Texas should remain 
an independent republic, than to have her return under the govern- 
ment of Mexico, is a position that I think no one will question. It 
appears to me equally evident, that it is more for our interest, in 
every point of view, to allow her to remain as she is, than to annex 
her territory to ours. But the question is often asked, — can she sup- 
port her independence ? Can she, under her present debt and em- 
barrassment, maintain her national existence, without seeking foreign 
protection ? I am aware that, among our most prominent men, there 
are many who sincerely believe that she must, from necessity, seek 
a European alliance, should we refuse her admission into the Union 
— and that such an alliance would be dangerous, not only to our com- 
mercial prosperity, but to the future security of the South. It is a 
difficult subject, to attempt to discuss the probable policy that a na- 
tion, situated as she is, will pursue. It is, however, but fair to pre- 
sume that, under any and all circumstances, she will maintain a 
distinct national character, unless subverted by a superior power. 
The strength of Texas lies in the weakness of Mexico. Unaided, 
Mexico can never recover her power over her lost territory. The 
history of both, for the last nine years, has amply demonstrated that 
such is the fact. The public debt of Texas, and the expense of con- 
stantly providing for the defence of her frontier settlements, against 
the incursions of the Mexicans and Indians, are now the only imped- 
iments to her civil and commercial prosperity. That she will be 
eventually compelled to repudiate a part, if not the whole, of her 
public debt, is certain — and the sooner she does it, the better it will 
be for her future prosperity. As it regards the existing war, what- 
ever may be the result of the present question of Annexation, Mex- 
ico will be compelled, at no distant day, by the great Christian pow- 
ers, to acknowledge her independence. So confident am I of this, 
that I believe it would long since have been accomplished, but for 
the intervention of the question of Annexation. Texas, of her own 
free will, will never enter into any foreign alliance that will com- 
promise her nationality, especially with France or England. Such a 
movement is not consistent with the character of her population, nor 
would her proximity to us allow her to endanger her peace by such 
a measure. No foreign power, excepting these United Slates, could 
obtain a footing in Texas, except by force. Is there, then, any prob- 
ability of an attempt, on the part of England, or France, to obtain 



37 

possession of Texas ? With nations, as with individuals, there must 
be prominent motives for prominent actions. One of the motives 
presumed to actuate the powers named, and which has been exhib- 
ited in a strong Ught before the people, is the desire, on their part, to 
obtain the command of the Gulf of Mexico. Let us, for a moment, 
look at the position of Texas, and examine her facilities for the es- 
tablishment of naval depots. The whole coast of Texas is formed by 
alluvial deposits, and sands thrown up by the action of the sea. It is 
uniformly low, and dangerous to approach, and swept by irregular 
and dangerous currents. The quicksands thrown up by the action of 
the waves, form uncertain and dangerous bars at the entrance of all 
her rivers and harbors. The coast is also subject to sudden and vio- 
lent gales, which render it dangerous for ships of any size to anchor 
in the offing, except at particular seasons. The port of Galveston, 
the best in the republic, will not admit a ship, under the most favor- 
able circumstances, drawing over twelve and a half feet of water — 
nor is it at any time considered perfectly safe, with a draft of over 
eleven feet. Galveston Island, upon which the ciiy is situated — a 
low sand bank, its highest elevation not three feet above the level of 
the sea — forms the only protection to the harbor, from the east. On 
the north, a shoal of sand, level with the water, called Pelican Island, 
forms the only protection from the Northers, which have a sweep 
down the bay, of thirty-five miles. A bar crosses the bay, twenty 
miles up, having upon it only four feet of water. The water, upon 
each side of the bay, is shoal — being not over four to six feet. 
Galveston Island is the only position in the bay, where a Naval De- 
pot could be located — and that is every year liable to an overflow of 
the sea. No arrangement can ever be made to safely haul down, 
and repair, the hull of a vessel, from the continual shifting of the 
sand on the shore of the Island. The bar, at the entrance of the 
harbor, is formed of a lively quicksand, which has, thus far, proved 
the total destruction of every vessel that has grounded upon it. The 
bar, at Sabine bay, has only six feet of water — the port at the west 
of Galveston Island, seven feet — the mouth of the Brasses river, five 
feet — Matagorda bay, eight feet — Aransaso bay, ten feet — and the 
mouth of the Rio Grande, eight feet of water. 

Such are the facilities, offered by the coast of Texas, for a naval 
station. Will any man, of the least judgment in such matters, coun- 
tenance the idea that the possession of these ports, by any maritime 
power, would give that power command of the Gulf of Mexico ? 
The only nation that could possibly be supposed to desire such a pos- 
session, is England — and the friends of Annexation have delusively 
held up this idea, for the purpose of making political capital, until 
they have, apparently, come to the belief that England seriously en- 
tertains the intention of obtaining Texas for such a purpose. Let us 
look, for a moment, at the situation of England, in regard to her 
naval superiority in the Gulf — and then ask the question, is the pos- 
session of Texas necessary or even desirable to her ? At the South. 



38 

she has the Island of Jamaica — at the North, Bermuda — in the cen- 
tre, the ports of Cuba, which she can, at her pleasure, command. 
On the Western shore of the Gulf, she has the port of Belize, Hon- 
duras, and a port on the Mosquito shore, lately ceded to her, which is 
said, by good authority, to be one of the best in the world, and capa- 
ble of riding at anchor all the navies of Europe. So far is she from 
seeking new possessions in the Gulf, thai she has, for the last thirty 
years, neglected her own colony of Honduras — a colony, capable, 
by the patronage of the government, of raising a large part of the 
cotton she consumes. What possible reasons can she have, then, to 
desire the possession of Texas? I think I have clearly shown that, 
as a naval position, it would rather weaken than strengthen her power. 
I can see no reason, on her part, for such a wish, except it be the de- 
sire to obtain a territory that might, in time, render her independent 
of these United States, in her supplies of cotton. To put that ques- 
tion, at once, at rest, it is only necessary to state that a vast majority 
of the Cotton Lands of Texas are of no value, without slave labor — 
and that, in the possession of England, and cultivated by free labor, 
Texas can never compete with the Southern States, in the production 
of cotton. So strongly am I persuaded of the correctness of this 
opinion, that I believe it would be most decidedly for the interest of 
the South to have slavery abolished in Texas, and thereby secure to 
themselves the monopoly of cotton in the European markets. 



LETTER XIII. 

February 22. 

Sir : — In the several letters I have presented to the public, I have, 
as I stated in my first number I should do, confined myself to an ex- 
position of facts; giving only such slight illustrations as I deemed 
absolutely necessary to a clear understanding of my meaning. The 
probable effect of annexation, upon the future political history of 
our country, has been so thoroughly discussed, by the ablest men of 
our nation, that anv attempt, on my part, to advise or counsel, might 
well be considered as presumption. I commenced these letters 
under the impression that I could lay before the public information 
upon this all-absorbing question, which could not be derive'd from 
any other source. The answer of the Executive to the call of the 
House of Representatives for information in regard to the debt and 
public lands of Texas, has already proved that my impressions were 
correct, I have but little fear, whatever may be the result of this 
question, that any of the statements I have made will ever be ques- 
tioned or contradicted. 



39 

It is my intention, in this letter, to deviate somewhat from the 
course I have laid down. The subject, however, requires it — and I 
trust that will he a sufficient excuse. The subject of slavery, to 
which I am about to allude, as involved in the question of Aiinexa- 
Uvn. is one of fearful importance to the Free States. It has been 
presented to the public, in its general l)eiiriiig upon our social insti- 
tutions, ill so clear and strong a light, that if we could divest the 
public iniiid of political bias, we should hardly find a voice raised in 
its defence. There is one point, however, in which it has not yet 
been exhibited — a point, loo, which has a strong bearing, not only 
upon the present question, but upon the final extinction of slavery 
within the Union. I allude to the facilities for its unlauful increase 
in the territt.ry of Texas. In Texas there are, at the present time, 
from twenty-five to thirty thousand slaves. Nearly that number has 
been returned, as taxable property. How came they there 1 The 
Constitution prohibits their introduction, except from these United 
States. Has that number been transported from the South ? It is 
in the power of Congress to obtain information on this point, at 
least. Let them apply to the Collectors of New Orleans, Mobile 
and Charleston, and ascertain the number that have been cleared 
from those ports. It will be found that not one-third of the number 
now there, ever saw these ."• tales. 

Prior to the revolution, there were, legally, no slaves in Texas. 
In)uiedialely subsequent to that event, the public returns rated the 
number at about five thousand. Can it, for a moment, be believed 
that, in seven years, the natural and imported increase could exceed 
twenty thousand 1 To answer the question how they came there, I 
will refer to facts well known in Texas. A direct trade in slaves 
has been carried on between Cuba and Tcvas ; in the early part of 
her history, almost openly — latterly, in secret. Two full cargoes 
were obtained in Havana in 183G, and landed in Texas, under the 
following circumstances : It is the practice of the British Govern- 
ment to apprentice, for a limited time, the slaves captured and car- 
ried into Cuba. These apprentices were, under some pretence, pur- 
chased at a trifling price, and shipped to Texas. There they were 
sold as slaves — nominally for a given time, but in fact for life — and 
they and their descendants are now slaves forever. To what extent 
the trade has been carried on, can only be judged from circum- 
stances. The immense profit that it offered, and the facilities of 
landing them on the coast, would lead to the belief that it has been 
practiced to a great extent. If one can judge by the number of 
fresh negroes to be found upon the plantations in Texas, the impor- 
tation must have been large indeed. From this source, alone, could 
have been realized the great increase of slave population in that 
country. As it can be made a matter of perfect demonstration what 
number have been exported from the South, and as there were origin- 
ally no slaves there, it can be ascertained, at short notice, should 
Congress require it, what number of negroes, not natives of these 



40 

United States, would be brought into the Union by Annexatfon. V 
would not be understood as implicating the government of Texas in 
this piratical introduction of negroes, as I know strong measures 
have been constantly used to prevent it. Nor do 1 believe her citi- 
zens have, to any great extent, countenanced the trade — it having 
been principally perpetrated by aliens. The fact, however, that the 
negroes are now in the country, is sufficient — and the proof that no 
Jegal restraint could prevent their introduction, is a strong argument 
against the admission, to our Union, of a territory so open to the 
gratification of piratical cupidity. 

There is, also, another way in which negroes have been, and may 
be now, legally introduced into Texas from other sources than this 
country. By the existing treaty between France and that country, 
France is entitled to all the rights and privileges which Texas has 
granted, or may grant, to the most favored nations. By this treaty, 
which was formerly ratified by the authorities of Texas, negroes can 
be introduced from the French Colonies, in the same manner they 
are now introduced from our Southern States. 1 may be answered 
that the Constitution expressly provides that slaves shall only be 
introduced into Texas from these United States, and that the 
treaty stipulation would be void as against the Constitution. I 
answer that it was distinctly understood, at the time of the negotia- 
tion, that this privilege would accrue to the French Colonies; and 
it was one of the inducements offered by Texas to the French Gov- 
ernment, to obtain the acknowledgment of her independence. All 
are aware of the desire of France to extinguish slavery in her colo- 
nies ; and that the only impediment to its accomplishment is the 
amount of indemnification money required. A market that would 
drain off the blacks from her West India possessions and facilitate 
emancipation, was a desideratum not to be lost. The fact that this 
privilege would be granted, under the provisions of the Treaty, was 
well understood in Texas, at the time of its ratification. Its un- 
constitutionality cannot now affect the existing rights of France. I 
am not aware of the extent to which blacks have been introduced 
into Texas,, from the French Colonies, but I have good reason to 
believe that many have been so introduced. 

In the discussion of this question, in the House of Representa- 
tives, the argument has been used, that in the admission of Texas, 
we only take back slaves that were originally from these States. 
The fact that there were other slaves in the country, and in much 
greater number than those shipped from our slave States, appears 
never to have entered the minds of the opponents of the measure. 
In truth, the practical effect of Annexation upon ihe question of the 
extension of slavery, has been lost in the speculations upon slave 
representation. To illustrate this remark, I will now proceed to 
show the facilities that will arise from Annexation, in the introduc- 
tion of new slaves. Slave property, from the ease with which it can 
be transported, will always find the highest market. The low prices 



41 

at which such property is now held in the French and Spanish Colo- 
nies, and the high price it will command in Texas, should she be ad- 
mitted into the Union, will open, at once, an illicit trade in negroes. 
The laws of these United States, as they now stand, could not pre- 
vent it, from the impossibility of carrying them into execution. As 
I have already shown, in the description of the sea coast of Texas, 
that it is so intersected and cut up by bayous and inlets, that no force 
that could be employed, could prevent such a trade. Whole cargoes 
could be landed, by boats, in a single night, and placed beyond 
the pursuit of a naval force, before morning. The whole line of 
coast, from Matagorda Bay to the Rio Grande, is not only open to 
such a trade, but invites it, from the absolute security it offers against 
detection or apprehension. To say that such a trade would not be 
carried on, where the profits offered would be so immense, is to ar- 
gue against all experience. Thousands could be found, even of our 
own citizens, depraved enough to embark in it, to any extent. A gain, 
the whole line on the Rio Grande would become one vast slave mar- 
ket. To those acquainted with the revolting system by which per- 
sonal labor is held in Mexico, and the absolute degradation in which 
three quarters of the population are placed, 1 need not attempt to 
show that every facility would be offered to such a trade, and that 
even Mexican citizens would often, by indirect means, be sold into 
slavery. Let us look, for a moment, at the ease with which such a 
trade could be carried on. A cargo of freshly imported negroes 
could be obtained in Cuba, under cover of the apprentice system, 
with the avowed intention of transporting them to Mexico. They 
are landed on the Mexican Bank of the Rio Grande, and marched 
into the interior. The laws of Mexico would guarantee their labor 
and possession to the speculator. He could transport them, at his 
pleasure, over the river, and sell them under indentures, as he pur- 
chased them, or even for life. In either case they would eventually, 
with their descendants, become the absolute property of the pur- 
chaser. Who is there, under such circumstances, to contest the right 
of the master to his slave .'' Let any one who doubts that such a 
trade could be safely and profitably carried on, look into the laws of 
Mexico, affecting master and servant. Let him cast his eye over the 
map of the country, and he will be fully satisfied. Time will not 
permit me to digress from the subject, more fully to explain my 
meaning in this respect. 

I may be asked why slaves cannot be introduced in a similar man- 
ner, into our own territory, through Texas, even should she remain 
separate ? I answer, that,from the fact of all our slaves being natives, 
they could be immediately detected ; besides, the value of slaves in 
Texas will be, for many years, greater than in these United States. 
6 



42 



LETTER XIV. 

March 1. 

Sir: — Should Texas continue an independent nation, the fertility 
and low price of her lands would render slave labor of greater value 
than it ever could attain in the Southern States. The unsettled state 
of the country has, alone, prevented an imnnense importation of 
slaves. For the last five y.'.ars, an able-bodied man has been worth, 
in Texas, from two to four hundred dollars more than in Louisiana. 
While such is the case, no one can doubt that, at no distant period, 
Texas would so drain off the blacks from those States where their 
labor is not productive, that they would soon become free States. 
Among those that would be thus operated upon, we may class Dela- 
ware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky. Such an 
effect would be experienced, should Texas be admitted into the Union. 
But the result, in the two cases, would widely differ. The addition 
of four slave States to the Union would give a permanency to the 
policy of slave representation, which would act as a check upon the 
abolition of slavery in those States, even, which might, under other 
circumstances, be desirous of the measure ; as they would hesitate 
to throw themselves, by the act of abolition, from the majority into 
the minority. 

Emigrati(5n to Texas, as a separate government, would be repul- 
sive to the minds of thousands, who would seek it as an El Dorado^ 
if admitted as a part of our Union. In one case, the master would 
alone seek a price and a market for his slaves — while, in the other, 
he would seek a more favorable location for them and himself. In 
the one case, free would gradually take the place of slave labor, 
without materially impoverishing the State — while, in the other, the 
lands would be depopulated, without a probability of a substitution of 
free labor. To illustrate this, let us take a practical view of the ef- 
fects of annexation upon a single State. I will take, for example, 
one of the most ultra in the measure. South Carolina. How many 
of her planters would expatriate themselves, by emigrating to Texas, 
as an independent nation } Not one in a thousand. Admit her into 
the Union, and the face of things is to them materially changed. 
We will suppose a planter has five hundred acres of land, and one 
hundred negroes — that he values his land at thirty dollars per acre, 
and his slaves at five hundred dollars each. He can obtain land in 
Texas, under the same government and institutions, of treble the ac- 
tual value, for cultivation, at one dollar per acre. The value of the 
labor of his slaves will be more than doubled, by the quality and 
value of their production. The excess in value of the land which 
he sells, over that which he purchases, he can invest in new hands, 
and immensely increase his productive capital. Suppose his planta- 
tion incumbered, as most of them are, such a change would be a 



43 

perfect God-send to him. Will not such an opportunity be improved 
by all the young and enterprising planters of the State? It has al- 
ready, under the unfavorable circumstances in which Texas has been 
placed, been improved to a great extent; and most probably would 
be, to an extent iliat would beggar the State. How is the soil, made 
vacant by emigration, to be again occupied ? Certainly not by free 
labor, while the Slate continues to uphold slavery. Nor will it be 
occupied again by slave-holders, for they cannot compete with the 
productions of Texas. It must lie vacant, and the State be propor- 
tionally impoverished. These remarks apply, with equal force, to all 
the slave States, with the exception of Mississippi and Louisiana, If 
the loss of the most valuable part of the population of these States 
would be likely to abolish or ameliorate slavery, we might look upon 
such a result with indifference — but it will have no such effect. The 
preponderance of slave representation, even under such circum- 
stances, will be maintained at any cost. The shackles of party will 
be more firmly riveted than ever — and the South, regardless of the 
actual causes of her depression, will continue to attribute it to the 
prosperity of the North, acquired at her expense — and that jealousy, 
which is nowmarring our prospects as a nation, will be increased a 
hundred fold. 

The fact, that the Annexation of Texas will materially reduce the 
value of real property in the Southern States, appears not to have at- 
tracted the attention of the friends of the measure — and yet, it is one 
that should have great weight. I conversed, some time since, with a 
planter, who, about three years previously, had sold out his plantation 
in Alabama, and settled on Caney Creek, in Texas. He told me that 
he had sold his plantation at a good price, for negroes, and had pur- 
chased his present land at two dollars per acre. In his present loca- 
tion, he could raise double the quantity of cotton, and of a better 
quality, with the same number of hands. There was less risk in the 
crop, than in the best land in the States ; and the climate was as fa- 
voral)le to the. health of the blacks as that of Alabama. Some of 
the planters, formerly his neighbors, were on the point of joining 
him ; and would do so at once, if Texas was annexed to the Slates. 
There is but little doubt that, if the objection of locating under an- 
other government was removed, thousands of our Southern planters 
would remove, with their slaves, to Texas. The effect, u|jon some 
of our Southern States, would be immense ; not only in the deprecia- 
tion of the value of land, but in the prostration of every branch of 
industry. Among a free white population such difficulties are soon 
overcome, by the elastic industry of the people — but, in a slave State, 
it is far different. Such shocks to the public welfare are seldom, if 
ever, recovered from. These views of the effect and extent of emi- 
gration, in case of annexation, are not a matter of speculation. The 
past history of the settlement of Texas is sufficient proof that they 
will be more than realized. 

The next point, to which I would call your attention, is the trade 



44 

of Texas. Much has been said on the policy of securing that mar- 
ket for our manufactures, and of the fear that England may secure 
to herself the trade of that country, by the offer of commercial priv- 
ileges. I acknowledge, not only the policy, but the necessity of our 
obtaining the market of Texas for our manufactures — but, will the 
annexation of her territory to this Union insure the consumption of 
our fabrics to a greater extent than she would consume them as an 
independent nation ? if her political position is materially to atfcct 
her consumption, the friends of annexation should show how, and in 
what manner — and yet, we hear nothing from them, but mere asser- 
tion. If Texas was in a position to admit the introduction of foreign 
manufactures free of duty, or to grant to any nation a monopoly of 
her market, there might "be some cause of fear — but, as she is bur- 
thencd with a heavy debt, and, by her location, completely under our 
control, we are secure at least of a fair competition in her market. 
In the expense of transportation, we have largely the advantage of 
other nations ; and, in a similarity of tastes and associations, the 
strongest promptings to commercial intercourse. To show the prac- 
tical results of Annexation upon the commerce of the United States, 
it will be necessary to go into an examination of the present trade of 
Texas, to which I will devote my next letter. 



LETTER XV. 

March 15. 

Sir : — The trade of Texas was exclusively with these United States, 
prior to 1840. Nearly the whole was with the port of New Orleans. 
The goods shipped were such as are usually consumed by planters, 
with the exception of Tobacco, and a few other articles, intended to 
be smuggled into Mexico. Prior to the revolution, nearly the whole 
business of the country was transacted on the Brasses river. In the 
winter of 1834-5, one small vessel, of forty tons, did all the trans- 
portation between New Orleans and Galveston bay. Galveston 
Island, where the city now stands, was a barren sand-bank, with but 
one hut upon it. In fact, no chart of the bay had ever been made ; 
and its depth of water was only inferred, from the knowledge that the 
pirate, Lafitte, had made it a rendezvous for his vessels. The coun- 
try was poor — bnt little money in circulation — and the manufactured 



45 

articles consumed were of the coarser kinds. The immense influx 
of emigration, subsequently to the revolution, and the establishment 
of the towns of Houston and Galveston, created, as it were by mapic, 
a large commercial trade. The attention of the merchants of France 
and England was directed to the trade of Texas. Several English 
vessels were sent to Galveston freighted with bulky articles, for the 
purpose of obtaining cargoes of cotton. The arrival of these vessels 
was hailed as an era in the history of the new republic. The specu- 
lation of a few merchants was heralded as a national demonstration — 
and the utmost was made of it, by those then interested in the con- 
templated project of Annexation. 

The result of these voyages was disastrous to those interested. 
The articles they imported could not be sold, in the quantities 
brought, except at immense sacrifices. No conveniences were to be 
had, for screwing or packing cotton, and no facilities for loading ; 
and, from the total want of any banking institutions, the factors were 
compelled to purchase their articles with ready money, and in small 
parcels. The voyages, in every instance that came to my knowledge, 
were ruinous. Many of these difficulties were, undoubtedly, incident 
to a new country, and may be obviated as the country advances — 
but there are others that never can be obviated, and which will effec- 
tually prevent a direct trade to Europe. I will state them, as they 
occur to me. The first and most important, is the shallowness of 
the entrance, the dangerous bar, and insecure anchorage of Galveston 
bay. No vessel of over three hundred tons, however favorably built 
for draught of water, can safely enter it. It is well known that 
vessels of that class cannot be profitably employed in the transpor- 
tation of cotton to Europe, at any thing like the present rates of 
freight. If a bounty was to be granted, by the British Government, 
of a penny per pound upon Texas cotton, it would hardly equalize 
the difference of the cost of transportation, between such vessels and 
our large freighting ships. The bulk of all the cotton lands of Texas 
is south of Galveston. In fact there is but little land on the tributary 
waters of the bay, that is suitable for the culture of cotton. There 
being no port, at the south, that will admit a vessel of any burthen, 
the article must be sent to a port of lading by water. If so sent, the 
expense would be less to send it direct to New Orleans, than to 
Galveston. 

Another objection to a direct trade with Europe, is that, allowing 
the entire consumption to be of the manufactures of Great Britain, it 
would require but a small amount of tonnage to transport the supply, 
in comparison with that required to export her cotton. Consequently 
as the ships must come out comparatively empty, the expenses 
against the return freights would be greatly increased. But to un- 
derstand the subject clearly, let us look into the character of the 
consumers, and the nature of the manufactured articles consumed. 
Our Southern States have never been (in comparison with their 
population) consumers of manufactures, to an extent any thing like 



46 

those of the North. We seldom hear of importing houses, located ift 
slave States ; and never, unless they are in cities vi'hich have become, 
by position, depots for the business of free States. The slave popu- 
lation are seldom consumers of foreign fabrics ; and the demand for 
the white population, in slave states, is less than for the same number 
in a free State. Large as have been the exports of our Southern 
States, they have been compelled to depend upon the North for their 
foreign goods. It is but fair to presume that Texas, as a slave Slate, 
will be similarly situated. The demand for the finer fabrics will, for 
many years, be extremely limited in Texas. The principal articles 
consumed, along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, will be negro 
clothing, provisions, tools, cotton bagging, rope, &c. These articles 
will be obtained where they can be had cheapest — and there can be 
no question that we can supply them cheaper, and of a better quality, 
than any European nation. Placing the direct trade between Texas 
and Europe under the most favorable circumstances, the consumption 
of European manufactures must be, for a long time, confined to the 
sea coast. The rivers that penetrate the interior are tributary to the 
Mississippi — and our means of communication must forever secure 
to us that portion of her trade. In regard to the Santa Fe trade, upon 
which much has been said, I will make but one remark — the pos- 
session of Texas will not benefit us in that respect. Although the 
distance from Galveston to Santa Fe is less than from St. Louis to 
Santa Fe, yet the distance from St. Louis could be travelled in one 
half the time, and at half the risk and expense. A railroad may be 
laid from St. Louis, but never can be from the Gulf of Mexico. 
These are some of the reasons why a direct trade can never be 
advantageously carried on between Texas and Europe. What are 
we, then, to gain, in a commercial view, by Annexation ? Under 
any circumstances in which Texas may be placed, we must supply 
her with all the articles that she requires, which we can sell cheaper 
than she can bring them across the Atlantic. We do this, and no 
more, in our own slave States. If South Carolina can import cotton 
bagging cheaper than she can get it from Kentucky, she will do so ; 
and it will be so with Texas, annexed or not annexed. The idea 
that Texas will give a monopoly of her market to England, or any 
other nation, is absurd. Bad as her population has been represented 
to be, they are neither fools nor madmen. 

With these few desultory remarks upon trade, I will close this se- 
ries of letters on Annexation. I believe I have performed all I prom- 
ised, in my introduction. I have endeavored to condense, as far as 
possible, the information it was in my power to give, upon this mo- 
mentous question, and to avoid exhibiting any thing like party feeling. 
The remarks I have made are the result of seven yeais connection 
with the trade and affairs of Texas, and an intimate acquaintance 
with her population. So far as my personal feelings are connected 
with Texas, I desire, and would contribute all in my power, to ad- 
vance her prosperity. As an independent nation, she will, at no dis- 



47 

tant'day, assume a high rajik. As a part of our Union, she will sink 
into comparative insignificance. The annexation of Texas, if con- 
summated, would, personally, benefit me ; for I am largely interested, 
both in her lands and scrip. Yet I cannot, even by my silence, ap- 
prove of it ; for I view it as a measure disgraceful to my country, 
and sowing the seeds of civil commotions that will one day shake 
tJiis Union to its centre. These letters have been written as I could 
find leisure, without revision or study. They contain, as I believe, 
an unadorned statement of facts. To what extent they may influence 
the public mind, I leave to time to determine. If they can, even in 
the smallest degree, awaken my fellow citizens to the national peril 
involved in the question,! shall be amply compensated for my labors. 
The only proof that 1 can offer of my sincerity in the opinions I have 
advanced is, that I have labored in secret, without the hope of fame 
or reward — that I have much to lose, and nothing to gain, by the 
course I have pursued. With my thanks to the proprietors of the 
Atlas, for the large space in their columns which they have, from 
time to time, so generously allowed me, 

I am, sir, very respectfully, &c., 

LISLE. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



illllllllllllllilllllliilllllllilllll 
014 645 260 7 



